U.S. and Nazi Germany

  • Thread starter Thread starter ncgolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Comparing the death camps of the holocaust to abortion is an erroneous arguement as you’re already pre-determining the outcome of any discussion, (which inevitably follows when you draw a historical comparison). .
What is wrong with comparing the known history of one government with the evolving history of the U.S. If the comparison does not hold then where is it false? It is both sad and scary that the comparison could even be suggested but the numbers tell the story. While I do not know all the reasons why the Nazis did what they did the explanations afterward seem very trite. The Nazis had to dress up their carnage in words like “Final Solution” much the same way “Pro-Choice” is used. I pre-determined nothing but am merely pointing out what should seem so plainly obvious.
 
Comparing the death camps of the holocaust to abortion is an erroneous arguement as you’re already pre-determining the outcome of any discussion, (which inevitably follows when you draw a historical comparison). If it’s fair to use history then once apon a time I could have followed the Catholic morality of the day and suggested “kill them all, God will know his own” and my arguement would have had just as much legitimacy and would also hold the weight of Church approval.
It’s because you’re living in denial and ignoring the facts. Let me ask you this. Does unconditional love come from reason? Nope. Does condemning murder come from reason? Surely not. To say that “comparing the death camps of the holocaust to abortion is an erroneous arguement” is like living in a house with flames and saying there’s no fire. Very inconsistent and poor reasoning.
 
What I’m suggesting is that by invoking historical examples to draw comparisons is seldom a dip into the realms of logic. You could say that historically, Stalin and Hitler were against abortion and we should follow their example. Conversely, you could say that Stalin and Hitler exterminated millions and we should not follow their example by not allowing abortion.

Consider the comparison that estesbob gave when he took my words and replaced “abortion” with rape, robbery and murder. He is suggesting by comparison that these things are akin to abortion but misses the point thatto draw the comparison society must see them as desirable and here in lies what I’m saying. Until society sees abortion as undesirable nothing realistic is going to change.
 
abortion.

Consider the comparison that estesbob gave when he took my words and replaced “abortion” with rape, robbery and murder. He is suggesting by comparison that these things are akin to abortion but misses the point thatto draw the comparison society must see them as desirable and here in lies what I’m saying. Until society sees abortion as undesirable nothing realistic is going to change.
And there my friends is a concise summary of what is known as moral relativism. “Its OK to kill our children because society says it is”. So how about we substitute the word “jews” for Our Children. Guess that lets Hitler off the hook and also rather neatly gets us back on topic.
 
Until society sees abortion as undesirable nothing realistic is going to change.
That, my friend, is my point also. I do not believe the Nazis thought what they were doing was intrinsically evil, though I believe many thought it was … what did the silence bring. Society must begin to believe that what it condones through legal protection is nothing less than evil on the order of the other great genocides of the 20th century.
 
To say that comparing the death camps of the holocaust to abortion is an erroneous arguement" is like living in a house with flames and saying there’s no fire. Very inconsistent and poor reasoning.
How so? The death camps were a tool of both racial and political extermination. Abortion is, (as far as I understand) not.

I’m not saying abortion is right or acceptable (as many of you are desparate to think). What I am saying is that it isn’t going to go away just by making it illegal. If you think that’s “Moral Relativity” then you’re free to do so, but please understand that all you’re doing is sweeping the issue under the legal carpet and not really causing change, merely reacting to an effect.
 
How so? The death camps were a tool of both racial and political extermination. Abortion is, (as far as I understand) not.
Death camps are for the elimination of a subset of the population for any reason the state deems. The subset of the population no longer have any status as persons therefore any action against them can be tolerated as laws only protect most “citizens” of the state. Abortion is tolerated here because the class of persons(fetuses) no longer fit the definition of somebody who should be protected. Nazi Germany was for racial and poltical motives … abortion … purely economic.
 
How so? The death camps were a tool of both racial and political extermination. Abortion is, (as far as I understand) not.

I’m not saying abortion is right or acceptable (as many of you are desparate to think). What I am saying is that it isn’t going to go away just by making it illegal. If you think that’s “Moral Relativity” then you’re free to do so, but please understand that all you’re doing is sweeping the issue under the legal carpet and not really causing change, merely reacting to an effect.
Abortion is racial discrimination because it’s the killing of an unborn child who people see as inferior.
 
It’s hardly racial discriminaton, in fact it’s racially indiscriminate, but I’m not going to split hairs on this.

Consider the Irish situation. Abortion is illegal in Ireland, so thousands of Irish women travel over to the UK to have their abortions. As far as I can interpret, moral relativity has been traded for hypocrisy. If you make abortion illegal in the US, then watch women flock over the border to Canada. It might make you feel good about yourself and your country, but you’ve not effected any real change in your society, you’ve just passed the buck.
 
How so? The death camps were a tool of both racial and political extermination. Abortion is, (as far as I understand) not.

.
The primary goal of population control groups has always been to limit the number of black, yellow and brown children born. Abortion in the United states takes the lives of 25% of all Black babies a year.

Durendin when i see someone go through so much convoluted reasoning to jusitfy abortion I always get the feeling their primary motivation is to try and justify to themsleves their vote for pro-abortion canidates.
 
Durendin when i see someone go through so much convoluted reasoning to jusitfy abortion I always get the feeling their primary motivation is to try and justify to themsleves their vote for pro-abortion canidates.
In the UK, abortion hasn’t raised it’s head as a political issue and very few political figures have declared one way or the other.

I would be interested on your views on what I said in post #30 though?
 
In the UK, abortion hasn’t raised it’s head as a political issue and very few political figures have declared one way or the other.

I would be interested on your views on what I said in post #30 though?
Post #30 is more rationalization for the slaughter of our children, The fact abortion hasnt raised its head as a Political issue in Britain is to their everlasting shame.

Is your support of abortion in our country a way to salve your conscience by claimimg “everybody does it”?
 
Post #30 is more rationalization for the slaughter of our children, The fact abortion hasnt raised its head as a Political issue in Britain is to their everlasting shame.

Is your support of abortion in our country a way to salve your conscience by claimimg “everybody does it”?
You still haven’t answered the point raised, you’re just looking to repeat the mistake that Ireland made, (where an unmarried pregnant women is still seen as something shameful to be covered up). You ban abortion, so what, you’re now going to ban pregnant women from travelling abroad? Compulsory pregnancy tests at airports?

Until you effect change in your society you’re achieving nothing.
 
It’s hardly racial discriminaton, in fact it’s racially indiscriminate, but I’m not going to split hairs on this.
It isn’t? :bigyikes: It’s racial discrimination because it denies the child the right to live.
 
It isn’t? :bigyikes: It’s racial discrimination because it denies the child the right to live.
It could only possibly be interpreted as racial discrimination if we accept that unborm babies are a separate race. A bit of a surprise to tell someone that when you think about it. I’d love to see the look on parents faces when you tell them that their unborn son or daughter is a different race from them! (I suspect the maternity unit would erupt into a war zone!)

Abortion could only be considered racially discriminative if it were only offered to one specific race of people based on the colour of their skin or ethnic background. (And you really shouldn’t need me to tell you that).
 
Given that the pro-life lobby seems to be walking hand in hand with right wing Republican/Conservative politics which are hostile to the poor, I don’t forsee them welcoming the financial burden and handing out the cash.
I am not sure what “right wing Republican/Conservative” means to you. Truth is, there is not that much difference between the parties in most respects other than the rhetoric. The Democrats talk a lot about the poor, but do nothing for them but shift money to those who purport to speak for them. The Republicans talk a lot about encouraging individual initiative, but do nothing to end the confusion of the tax code and regulatory oppression that discourages individual initiative. Both Dems and Repubs voted for the Iraq war. Last year, a vote to “immediately end the war” was overwhelmingly defeated by both parties. So, outside of the tax cuts, there’s not all that much difference, until you get to the life issues. When you get right down to it, both parties are busy shoveling money to their contributors, and not much more. Sometimes it seems to me it would be a lot less expensive if the government just wrote checks to the lobbyists and cut out the middle men.

But when it comes to the life issues, there truly is a difference. The Dems have found that a lot of money can be obtained from the abortion lobby, but that it is an unforgiving source. So almost no Democrat, regardless of religion, will do anything but support abortion. Unlike their purported concern for the poor, they really do push the agenda of the abortion lobby, because that’s where the money is.

There might be a degree of cynicism on the part of the Repubs in encouraging the aspirations of prolifers. No doubt the party enjoys the money and the votes that have pushed them to power for now. Still, the Repub party finds it necessary to push the prolife agenda, and really does it, at least for now. So, if the only serious difference between the parties is their respective positions on protecting the life of the unborn, there is only one way for a prolife person to vote. If the situation were reversed; that the Dems were prolife and the Repubs were pro-abortion, then you would see the prolife vote switch parties. I would be one of them.

The problem with all of these issues is that most people can’t seem to see through the rhetoric, including, perhaps most culpably, Catholic bishops. Notwithstanding that the Dems are blind and deaf to social justice, the bishops continue to have a kind of residual belief that they are not. The tragedy of this whole situation is that, with real leadership from church spokesmen, particularly the bishops, these issues could be “picked off”, one by one, because no politician would willingly give away 20% of the electorate starting out. Elections are too close for that nowadays.

The problem with prolife people is not that they are too close to the “right wing”, but that they are unfocused and unprioritized. I genuinely do think that if the religious people in this country were better led, abortion would at least be curtailed. Once that’s done, the religious leadership could, and should, focus on such issues as supporting the unwed mothers, reducing taxes on married couples with children, and so on. One thing at a time. I think the “Christian witness” of acting in this manner truly could have a profound effect on society.

But when the country’s message to its people, buttressed presently by the Dem party, is that unrestricted killing of the unborn is something sacred, then how can anyone expect the electorate to have charity in lesser ways? Abortion on demand is a disease of the soul of the body politic. The Nazis were known to be kind to animals, but that did not prevent their souls from being profoundly ill because of the evil things they were doing. The Dem party (and too many of the electorate) worry about the diminishing habitat of polar bears, but accept with equanimity the deaths of 45 million murdered children. It is profoundly, profoundly disordered, bespeaking a cancer of the soul. It is, in my mind, no accident that no social program worthy of the name has been passed or even proposed by either party since abortion on demand was imposed on the nation.

When one has cancer and a planter’s wart, one attacks the cancer first. That’s why I will vote Repblican as long as the Democrat party protects the killing of millions.
 
Ridgerunner, I will say that you’ve certainly made an impression on me with the clarity of the argument you profess and you’ve certainly given me plenty to think about.

One thing though concerning attitudes of political parties; The Republicans have had control of the White House, the House of Representatives and Congress. (As far as we over the pond can gather from the UK news and how it interprets US politics, so you’ll forgive me if I stumble along here!) So why no change in the law?
 
One thing though concerning attitudes of political parties; The Republicans have had control of the White House, the House of Representatives and Congress. (As far as we over the pond can gather from the UK news and how it interprets US politics, so you’ll forgive me if I stumble along here!) So why no change in the law?
Because of the way abortion on demand was imposed on the country. There was no vote. It was simply imposed by the Supreme Court (actually by one man on the Supreme Court). Therefore, no legislators or president can change it except through appointments to the Court. Bush has appointed Roberts and Alito. Fortunately, they both got through the confirmation process, though with difficulty we all observed. It would take one more, failing which even a 100% prolife Congress can do nothing to change the law. Now, if you want to talk about changing attitudes, the first thing that needs to happen is that the people need to be able to speak to it; that is, to have a vote. Because it was imposed by the Supremes, everybody’s conscience is “off the hook”, so to speak, and persuasion does not have the importance or relevance it would have if a subsequent Court reversed Roe and its progency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top