Why the insistence on linking abortion with the Holocaust?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
 
Worse in terms of numbers is undeniable.

I think that using a capital “H” for the word is wrong. It is not a proper noun. And with all due respect to Elie Wiesel, he doesn’t get to pick and choose how a word is used. The Nazi inflicted holocaust was one great evil. The modern abortion holocaust is another. You are right that it does no good to claim that one evil is worse than the other. In both cases, selective killing is being used as a way to “deal” with an undesirable element in the name of a false societal “good”.
 
gracepoole said:
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
Click to expand...
As you say, there are many dissimilarities between the two. The most obvious is that no one person or group or even ideology is responsible for those killed by abortion.

This is probably the reason why most people I’ve talked to or listened to in these forums feel that there is no need to have trials or hand out prison time to those guilty of abortion. Most feel that countries that do so (like Nicaragua) are being unjustifiably harsh. I would tend to agree, though it took me a while to feel comfortable with that viewpoint.

I also think that the falling rate of abortions in this country and the growing incidence of state laws limiting and circumscribing abortion is a good sign, and perhaps an indication that we can avoid paying the horrendous price in blood and destruction that Nazi Germany paid—provided we continue in this positive direction.
 
I don’t know what word to use to characterize it, but 50 million is a lot of dead in the U.S. since 1973. It’s a society bent on a death wish.
 
gracepoole said:
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
Click to expand...
If a group or individual wants to call abortion a holocaust, I, for one, have no objection. As you point out, however, it should not be a competition of sorts. There were other holocausts as well, in addition to the Nazi Holocaust, such as those in Rwanda and Cambodia. As a side issue, I recall that once upon a time preachers such as Jerry Falwell and perhaps also Pat Robertson were NOT opposed to abortion, but they eventually took part in the fight against abortion, which Catholics were always opposed to, as an expedient theme when they turned to politics.
 
gracepoole said:
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
Click to expand...
Abortion is the most horrific evil on the earth today, for several reasons:
  1. The mother is killing her own child, thus dulling or negating her maternal instinct to nurture and educate the next generation. It could literally end civilization, for this reason alone.
  2. The reasons for killing the child are often trivial. (Fewer than 1% of abortions are done for women who would actually die if the child were brought to term; fewer than 0.5 % are done for women who were raped.)
  3. A child of any race, class, or religion can be killed, no questions asked; no unborn child is safe.
 
Corki said:
Worse in terms of numbers is undeniable.
Click to expand...
Yes. Though there is no need to claim one atrocity is worse than another when both are an affront to God. If, for example, one were comparing Rwanda and the Holocaust, one shouldn’t claim that the Holocaust was worse because it had a larger victim count. Both are abominations.
Corki said:
I think that using a capital “H” for the word is wrong. It is not a proper noun. And with all due respect to Elie Wiesel, he doesn’t get to pick and choose how a word is used. The Nazi inflicted holocaust was one great evil. The modern abortion holocaust is another. You are right that it does no good to claim that one evil is worse than the other. In both cases, selective killing is being used as a way to “deal” with an undesirable element in the name of a false societal “good”.
Click to expand...
The word Holocaust wasn’t in regular use prior to WWII – it has a few scant references in the Bible and it always refers to a sacrificial death by fire. So at least in denotative terms, applying this word to abortion doesn’t make sense. But also, since for a vast majority the only familiarity with the term is in the context of the genocide conducted by Nazi Germany, there doesn’t seem much need for the lowercase version of the word. I think what you mean to say here is “It is not ONLY a proper noun” (as clearly, it is a proper noun when referring to specific events in WWII). But its usefulness outside of this context seems to be exceptionally limited by its actual definition. (And here’s something interesting in terms of the Church’s view of the word: israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142241#.UfM58W0pj0M)

The Holocaust has become an easy reference point. Only the most deluded will claim that the Holocaust wasn’t an atrocity on any and every level, so it’s easy to invoke its name as a common shorthand of sorts. If xxx is compared with it, then surely xxx must be an atrocity equal to it. In making these kinds of comparisons, both things being compared seem diminished rather than enhanced. I doubt, for instance, that the millions murdered in the Holocaust would appreciate a comparison with animals slaughtered for food. But animal rights activists have also used the word “holocaust” when speaking of this action.
meltzerboy said:
If a group or individual wants to call abortion a holocaust, I, for one, have no objection. As you point out, however, it should not be a competition of sorts. There were other holocausts as well, in addition to the Nazi Holocaust, such as those in Rwanda and Cambodia. As a side issue, I recall that once upon a time preachers such as Jerry Falwell and perhaps also Pat Robertson were NOT opposed to abortion, but they eventually took part in the fight against abortion, which Catholics were always opposed to, as an expedient theme when they turned to politics.
Click to expand...
I would say that there have been many other genocides, but only one Holocaust. There are many examples of death by starvation, but only one Holodomor. Does this make sense? As for Falwell and (perhaps) Robertson…wow.
 
gracepoole said:
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with what you are saying. Jewish people practiced holocausts as central to their relationship with God and to bring that bloody event to the altar in sacrifice before God as a holocaust is a profound Jewish religious act.

When we use the term ‘holocaust’ we limit its meaning to just something unholy like ‘mass murder’ or ‘genocide’, since Christians no longer practice holocausts. Christs death and resurrection covered that obligation and Christ taught us how to to continue coming back to His once and for all time sacrifice by way of the Eucharist. So to give true religious meaning to abortion and to bring these lost souls to the altar, we should rightly join their blood to the blood of Christ in His Passion and the Cross.
 
They both have this sense of process and sanitizing to me, if that makes sense. You watch your neighbor taken from your midst to some special place set aside for these things. There is this building and they wait in line and go into the building like it is okay and they are tossed dead out the back into piles.
 
Interestingly, they were both envisioned as eugenics movements.

Margaret Sanger, the foundress of Planned Parenthood (by the same of the Birth Control League) viewed the use of birth control (and subsequently abortion) as a means of bettering the race. See the article, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, in the February 1919 issue of the Birth Control Review (pp 11-12 of the linked PDF):



Abortion was not legal anywhere during Sanger’s lifetime, but PP embraced abortion as a means of controlling population as soon as it was.

If you read Sanger’s words above in regard to the eugenic purposes of her work, it should sound eerily familiar: she had a eugenic purpose and Hitler had a eugenic purpose in his efforts. To boot, Margaret Sanger was directly involved with Nazi eugenicists, such as Eugen Fischer. As stated in the book, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility (p 134),

http://i.snag.gy/Hhf2s.jpg

The connection is undeniably there. Sadly, most left wing pro-aborts have forgotten the roots of their movement.
 
markomalley said:
Interestingly, they were both envisioned as eugenics movements.

Margaret Sanger, the foundress of Planned Parenthood (by the same of the Birth Control League) viewed the use of birth control (and subsequently abortion) as a means of bettering the race. See the article, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, in the February 1919 issue of the Birth Control Review (pp 11-12 of the linked PDF):

http://snag.gy/EppPj.jpg

Abortion was not legal anywhere during Sanger’s lifetime, but PP embraced abortion as a means of controlling population as soon as it was.

If you read Sanger’s words above in regard to the eugenic purposes of her work, it should sound eerily familiar: she had a eugenic purpose and Hitler had a eugenic purpose in his efforts. To boot, Margaret Sanger was directly involved with Nazi eugenicists, such as Eugen Fischer. As stated in the book, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility (p 134),

http://i.snag.gy/Hhf2s.jpg

The connection is undeniably there. Sadly, most left wing pro-aborts have forgotten the roots of their movement.
Click to expand...
The historical and ideological roots of the present-day prevalence of abortion in America are accurately depicted here. But, is it really proper to accuse those individuals who seek the abortion option of being Nazis or eugenicists or genocide advocates when the motives for their actions lie within the confines of their own lives—however morally misguided those motives are?

Your typical inner-city woman who seeks to obtain an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy knows little about any of this history. In proportion to the education and (dare I say it?) socioeconomic level of the person seeking an abortion, the likelihood of knowing something about this history increases.

Now HERE is a $64,000.00 question.

Would knowing something about the history and ideology of the present-day abortion movement in America increase the moral level of culpability of the latter group of people?
 
colmywaykurtz said:
The historical and ideological roots of the present-day prevalence of abortion in America are accurately depicted here. But, is it really proper to accuse those individuals who seek the abortion option of being Nazis or eugenicists or genocide advocates when the motives for their actions lie within the confines of their own lives—however morally misguided those motives are?

Your typical inner-city woman who seeks to obtain an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy knows little about any of this history. In proportion to the education and (dare I say it?) socioeconomic level of the person seeking an abortion, the likelihood of knowing something about this history increases.

Now HERE is a $64,000.00 question.

Would knowing something about the history and ideology of the present-day abortion movement in America increase the moral level of culpability of the latter group of people?
Click to expand...
The question was about the validity of linking abortion with the Holocaust. My answer was that they both have the same roots: eugenics.

This eugenic characteristic of abortion is traceable to the people who seek to promote and provide abortion…not to those who seek to have abortions (unless, of course, they are one in the same person). If I wasn’t clear on that, I apologize.

Think about the scenario you paint: the typical inner-city woman who seeks to obtain an abortion. Is it relevant that she understand the roots of abortion or is it only necessary that the roots are there and help increase the availability of the service…and have so permeated our culture as to place a materialistic worth on human life that somehow justifies murder? Remember, one of the classes that Sanger was trying to control was the poor working class. It seems that this inner-city woman was responding to Sanger’s call just perfectly (see the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Birth Control Review article I clipped in the above post).

Would the moral culpability for the women who seek abortion be increased if they understood the roots of it? I personally don’t think so. Would the moral culpability for the people who seek to promote abortion be increased if they understood the roots of it? Yeah, I think it would.
 
Mark, I think the connection you’re making is one of *genocide *and abortion. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries’ worth of hatred and oppression launched at one group of people – and this hatred was based on many factors over time. Eugenics was certainly a major portion of this hatred as expressed in Nazi Germany, but it was not the sum total of it. Belief that the Jews had caused Germany’s loss in WWI, that Jews were Christ-killers, that because of the diaspora Jews were a nomadic plague upon Europe – these all existed, as well. The Jews have been the most hated and vilified group throughout recorded history, which is what makes their intended destruction via the Holocaust so unique. Your discussion of eugenics seems better matched with genocide.
 
gracepoole said:
Mark, I think the connection you’re making is one of *genocide *and abortion. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries’ worth of hatred and oppression launched at one group of people – and this hatred was based on many factors over time. Eugenics was certainly a major portion of this hatred as expressed in Nazi Germany, but it was not the sum total of it. Belief that the Jews had caused Germany’s loss in WWI, that Jews were Christ-killers, that because of the diaspora Jews were a nomadic plague upon Europe – these all existed, as well. The Jews have been the most hated and vilified group throughout recorded history, which is what makes their intended destruction via the Holocaust so unique. Your discussion of eugenics seems better matched with genocide.
Click to expand...
12 million people died during the Holocaust. 6 million, by far the larges group, were Jews. The other 6 million included Romany, the disabled, people of conscience who aided the Jews, the people of Poland, and many more. The Holocaust was a means of ridding the world of inferior or inconvenient people to produce a master race. This is the goal of Eugenics as well.
 
bcuster said:
12 million people died during the Holocaust. 6 million, by far the larges group, were Jews. The other 6 million included Romany, the disabled, people of conscience who aided the Jews, the people of Poland, and many more. The Holocaust was a means of ridding the world of inferior or inconvenient people to produce a master race. This is the goal of Eugenics as well.
Click to expand...
Of course, I don’t disagree that eugenics was a major part of the Nazi agenda. But review the whole of Nazi propaganda against the Jews and you’ll see there were other “reasons”, as well.

And of course, those who perished in the Holocaust deserve (just as those who die via abortion) to be uniquely remembered, not compared with any other atrocity. As I initially said, abortion is despicable enough that it need not be compared with anything else – indeed, what else can legitimately compare with it?
 
gracepoole said:
Mark, I think the connection you’re making is one of *genocide *and abortion. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries’ worth of hatred and oppression launched at one group of people – and this hatred was based on many factors over time. Eugenics was certainly a major portion of this hatred as expressed in Nazi Germany, but it was not the sum total of it. Belief that the Jews had caused Germany’s loss in WWI, that Jews were Christ-killers, that because of the diaspora Jews were a nomadic plague upon Europe – these all existed, as well. The Jews have been the most hated and vilified group throughout recorded history, which is what makes their intended destruction via the Holocaust so unique. Your discussion of eugenics seems better matched with genocide.
Click to expand...
I suppose one has to consider also the means of extermination in the case of the Jews during the Jewish Holocaust or genocide, whichever term is used. It wasn’t merely killing them in a highly efficient and systematic way by means of gas compounds and then burning them in the ovens, which was terrible enough, but also the unspeakable biochemical experiments, studies on overexposure to the cold, etc. conducted by the sadists such as Dr. Mengele and Ilse Koch (the “lampshade” woman), among others, in several of the hundreds of camps. Non-Jews, horribly as they were treated in both labor and extermination camps, were for the most part spared this truly evil torture inflicted on the Jews.
 
gracepoole said:
Mark, I think the connection you’re making is one of *genocide *and abortion. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries’ worth of hatred and oppression launched at one group of people – and this hatred was based on many factors over time. Eugenics was certainly a major portion of this hatred as expressed in Nazi Germany, but it was not the sum total of it. Belief that the Jews had caused Germany’s loss in WWI, that Jews were Christ-killers, that because of the diaspora Jews were a nomadic plague upon Europe – these all existed, as well. The Jews have been the most hated and vilified group throughout recorded history, which is what makes their intended destruction via the Holocaust so unique. Your discussion of eugenics seems better matched with genocide.
Click to expand...
No, I am specifically talking about the Shoah.

Hitler wanted to purify the.“Aryan” races by getting rid of all Jews in, first, Europe, then the world. Unlike other anti-Semitic persecutions in the past, converting to another religion did not save the Jew in question. He was still doomed. Any amount of Jewish blood in a person’s blood put him/her at risk.

It was a eugenic program.
 
Thanks for the information. One can only wonder how supposedly educated people like Dr. Mengele, who was both a physician and an anthropologist, can become so cruel and twisted. Unfortunately, Ilse Koch, nicknamed the “red witch of Buchenwald,” was Josef Mengele’s match, even more sadistic than her husband according to reports.
 
gracepoole said:
The term “Holocaust” literally refers to a sacrificial death by fire. And according to scholars and survivors like Elie Wiesel, there is only one Holocaust – it’s written with a capital “H” to indicate that it’s a proper noun and it refers to Nazi Germany’s genocide. Why, then, do people like Pat Robertson find it necessary to compare it to abortion? The claim that abortion is a genocide is different – it may or may not be. But it most definitely is not the Holocaust. This comparison strikes me as doing a disservice to the Holocaust’s victims as well as the millions murdered through abortion. Abortion is hideous enough that it need not be compared to another tragedy. And Robertson’s claim that abortion is “worse” than what happened in Nazi Germany is sick. They’re both immoral affronts to God – giving one atrocity a gold medal while giving another a silver, as though they’re competing in some sort of bizarre Olympics of Suffering, is really shameful.

“Robertson: US Abortion ‘Holocaust’ Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to ‘Wrath of the Lord’”
rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-us-abortion-holocaust-worse-nazi-germany-will-lead-wrath-lord
Click to expand...
Actually since genocide is defined as the killing of large groups of people from a particular ethnic group or nation it applies quite well to what happened to the Jews in WWII and not so much to abortion which happens across the globe.

holocaust which refers to killing on a mass scale is applicable to abortion IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top