Abortion and The Holocaust....Differences?

[Granite]

If it weren't for the emotional provocative power the Holocaust holds folks would compare elective abortion to Rwanda or the Khmer Rouge or literally any other atrocity in history. It's cheap, transparent, and frankly exploitative to hitch your wagon to the Holocaust to score some points.

 

[csuguy]

If it weren't for the emotional provocative power the Holocaust holds folks would compare elective abortion to Rwanda or the Khmer Rouge or literally any other atrocity in history. It's cheap, transparent, and frankly exploitative to hitch your wagon to the Holocaust to score some points.

While the holocaust is certainly abused in arguments - that does not mean that it cannot be validly used in an argument or comparison. That provocative power maybe appropriately utilized in cases where one group of people decides that it is beneficial to enslave/abuse/destroy some other group(s) of people and justify it through such means as dehumanizing those whom they have distinguished as "other." American Slavery, and slavery generally, can similarly be used appropriately for its provocative power - even if it is generally abused in internet debates.

Rather than right off the OP for invoking the holocaust you should point out why you think it an inappropriate usage - if indeed you feel that the similar efforts to dehumanize and destroy some group is all that different between the Nazis and pro-abortionists.

 

[Granite]

While the holocaust is certainly abused in arguments - that does not mean that it cannot be validly used in an argument or comparison.

I've seen such comparisons succeed...rarely. If ever.

That provocative power maybe appropriately utilized in cases where one group of people decides that it is beneficial to enslave/abuse/destroy some other group(s) of people and justify it through such means as dehumanizing those whom they have distinguished as "other."

The Holocaust was a unique atrocity in human history. Seizing on it for cheap points or out of ignorant laziness is inappropriate, to say the least.

American Slavery, and slavery generally, can also be used appropriately for its provocative power - even if it is generally abused in internet debates.

Agreed, to a point. I'd say that these outrages stand by themselves on their own ground and don't need constant comparison, one to another, as though one genocide is validated by name-checking another.

Rather than right off the OP for invoking the holocaust you should point out why you think it an inappropriate usage

I already did, and I can keep going.

 

[csuguy]

The Holocaust was a unique atrocity in human history. Seizing on it for cheap points or out of ignorant laziness is inappropriate, to say the least.

While it was certainly unique for a number of reasons, in particularly its scope, it isn't so unique an atrocity that is incomparable to any other number of atrocities. Were the Nazis fundamentally different from any other form of racists or elitists who sought to destroy and/or subjugate others because they viewed it as their right/responsibility to do so? Was their hate qualitatively different from any other hate group? Were their methods of indoctrination all that different from any other such group? Are they unique in their attempts at dehumanizing those they have declared to be "other"?

I do not believe the holocaust is invoked in cases like this simply to score some cheap points - but because there is a valid comparison to be had.

Agreed, to a point. I'd say that these outrages stand by themselves on their own ground and don't need constant comparison, one to another, as though one genocide is validated by name-checking another.

I agree that these things are atrocious in their own right without the need to compare against other atrocities. Abortions are horrible in their own right regardless of how many similarities exist between the current pro-abortion movement and other atrocities in history.

That said, often times it is easier for people to see the error of their ways when they are confronted with a similar but separate issue. This allows them to not be so defensive about the thing being analyzed - because they aren't involved in it. If they can see the error in the alternate but similar situation, then it is easier for them to accept the error in their ways.

That said, as I pointed out in my above post I think such an approach only goes so far. Ultimately the efforts to dehumanize others and to justify their actions by appealing to the "good" it does for society are merely manifestations of an underlying corruption. Attempting to address these does not address the underlying problems of selfishness and hate - which is the true cause of these atrocities.

I already did, and I can keep going.

ah, I'll have to go back and see what you wrote

 

[King cobra]

That's what I'm getting at, the point of abortion isn't to serve some genocidal end. It's not even that coherent as evils go.

Hitler said genocide, Sanger said eugenics. Let’s call the whole thing off.

I think using the Holocaust just invites a lot of confused side bar.

When I was a kid and was presented with a sanitized account of The Holocaust, I announced with the bravado of youth that had I been there, I would have stood in defense of the Jews.
Then one day, I realized I was living during a present day slaughter of innocents and I had done nothing. I got active. No confusion...only clarification.

I'd say it's enough to cut through the distance created by a one sided concentration and consideration in right and dignity and focus instead on victim's rights and that essential human dignity being denied.

The two-sided concentration is what creates a lens through which the distance of circumstances is shortened, allowing the focus to be on that very essential human dignity which is now being denied.

 

[Granite]

While it was certainly unique for a number of reasons, in particularly its scope, it isn't so unique an atrocity that is incomparable to any other number of atrocities.

I would disagree.

Were the Nazis fundamentally different from any other form of racists or elitists who sought to destroy and/or subjugate others because they viewed it as their right/responsibility to do so?

Yes, I believe so.

Was their hate qualitatively different from any other hate group? Were their methods of indoctrination all that different from any other such group?

Yes, and yes.

Are they unique in their attempts at dehumanizing those they have declared to be "other"?

In their attempts, no. In their method, doctrine, ideology, mythos, history, etc.--yes, I believe they were uniquely villainous.

I do not believe the holocaust is invoked in cases like this simply to score some cheap points - but because there is a valid comparison to be had.

That might not be the intent, but that is the effect.

I agree that these things are atrocious in their own right without the need to compare against other atrocities.

Well if more folks had a clue like you seem to we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of infantile "Well, Nazis!" kind of mentality.

Abortions are horrible in their own right regardless of how many similarities exist between the current pro-abortion movement and other atrocities in history.

...and there you go again.

That said, often times it is easier for people to see the error of their ways when they are confronted with a similar but separate issue.

That's the thing: Elective medical abortion and the culmination of centuries of anti-Semitism are indeed separate but share no similarities.

This allows them to not be so defensive about the thing being analyzed - because they aren't involved in it. If they can see the error in the alternate but similar situation, then it is easier for them to accept the error in their ways.

Saying "this one thing is wrong, which proves I'm onto something" is not sound analysis.

 

[csuguy]

That's the thing: Elective medical abortion and the culmination of centuries of anti-Semitism are indeed separate but share no similarities.

The groups being targeted maybe different and the specific reasons for it maybe different, but they are not the focus of the comparison. Rather the focus is upon the groups doing the slaughtering and their methods - with a particular emphasis on justifying their atrocities by means of dehumanizing the "others." It is a common means of justification when committing atrocities - just like we did with black slaves here in America.

Saying "this one thing is wrong, which proves I'm onto something" is not sound analysis.

That is an inaccurate summation of what I described. Allow me to provide an example from scripture which demonstrates my point (albeit this is done much better and more symbolically than a simple comparison to the holocaust):

2 Samuel 12:1-7
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. 4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” 5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!" ...​

By presenting a similar but seemingly distinct issue to David here, Nathan was able to get David to unwittingly judge his own actions - and if you keep reading David acknowledges his sin as a result.

 

[Granite]

The groups being targeted maybe different and the specific reasons for it maybe different, but they are not the focus of the comparison.

:rotfl:

So aside from the facts, details, and specifics, there's plenty of reason to compare the two. Top notch work there, guy.

Rather the focus is upon the groups doing the slaughtering and their methods

And like I already said: The Nazis are used as a basis for comparison because of the symbolism and emotional provocation inherent to their nature. If you wanted to compare abortion to Rwanda, or the Armenian Genocide, it wouldn't pack the same punch, and you know it, even though by your own (broad, ridiculous, non-specific) standards those are perfectly valid comparisons. Right?

Allow me to provide an example from scripture which demonstrates my point

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[csuguy]

:rotfl:

So aside from the facts, details, and specifics, there's plenty of reason to compare the two. Top notch work there, guy.

I pointed out where the comparison is relevant, so the above is an unjustified summation of my position.

And like I already said: The Nazis are used as a basis for comparison because of the symbolism and emotional provocation inherent to their nature. If you wanted to compare abortion to Rwanda, or the Armenian Genocide, it wouldn't pack the same punch, and you know it, even though by your own (broad, ridiculous, non-specific) standards those are perfectly valid comparisons. Right?

You could compare against those as well. The only reason they wouldn't be as provocative is because people are less familiar with them. Feel free to draw comparisons from those instead.

Thanks but no thanks.

Good to know you try to understand where other people are coming from rather than just writing them off. I guess this marks the end of this discussion.

 

[Granite]

I pointed out where the comparison is relevant, so the above is an unjustified summation of my position.

When you start off by saying specifics don't matter you don't have much ground to claim you can make a comparison.

You could compare against those as well.

But people don't. (And if they did, they'd still be wrong-headed.)

Good to know you try to understand where other people are coming from rather than just writing them off. I guess this marks the end of this discussion.

Trotting out a murderous womanizing traitor to teach a moral lesson isn't my cup of tea.

 

[King cobra]

Allow me to provide an example from scripture which demonstrates my point (albeit this is done much better and more symbolically than a simple comparison to the holocaust):

2 Samuel 12:1-7
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. 4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” 5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!" ...​

By presenting a similar but seemingly distinct issue to David here, Nathan was able to get David to unwittingly judge his own actions - and if you keep reading David acknowledges his sin as a result.

Only a cheap, transparent, lazy fool would refuse this lesson.

 

[csuguy]

When you start off by saying specifics don't matter you don't have much ground to claim you can make a comparison.

I never said specifics don't matter - I said that what you were focusing upon (the victims) was not the focus of the comparison.

But people don't. (And if they did, they'd still be wrong-headed.)

So basically you are opposed to using any atrocity in comparisons, regardless of how similar two of them are :hammer:

Trotting out a murderous womanizing traitor to teach a moral lesson isn't my cup of tea.

So if someone is a sinner then they are invalid to use as an example of how people may come to acknowledge their sin by examining a similar but separate issue? :AMR:

 

[Granite]

I never said specifics don't matter - I said that what you were focusing upon (the victims) was not the focus of the comparison.

I'm not just focusing on the victims.

So basically you are opposed to using any atrocity in comparisons, regardless of how similar two of them are

Not what I've been saying. If there is a valid comparison to make, go ahead. There is no comparing a medical procedure that's thousands of years old with what happened in Europe in the mid 20th century (to pick one possible example of contrast).

So if someone is a sinner then they are invalid to use as an example of how people may come to acknowledge their sin by examining a similar but separate issue?

Why do you think citing a Bible story's going to be effective with a guy like me?

 

[Stripe]

Why do you think citing a Bible story's going to be effective with a guy like me?

To be fair, nothing works on a guy who is determined to oppose everything.

 

[glassjester]

If there is a valid comparison to make, go ahead.

1. The victims' humanity is denied by their killers.

2. Millions are being killed.



Which of these similarities is incorrect?

 

[Granite]

1. The victims' humanity is denied by their killers.

2. Millions are being killed.



Which of these similarities is incorrect?

Sorry, but that isn't enough to make any kind of comparison between elective abortion and the Final Solution. Nowhere near enough. Not in the same ballpark, league, state, or universe.

It's as though you guys think abortion actually isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be and the only thing you can think of is comparing it to another outrage. Again, lazy, cheap, inaccurate, etc.

 

[Quetzal]

Sorry, but that isn't enough to make any kind of comparison between elective abortion and the Final Solution. Nowhere near enough. Not in the same ballpark, league, state, or universe.

It's as though you guys think abortion actually isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be and the only thing you can think of is comparing it to another outrage. Again, lazy, cheap, inaccurate, etc.

This has been my argument all along. I get it, you think it is a terrible thing. I can even understand why you think that way. With that said, framing it inside of that comparison is inaccurate and disrespectful. Further, you aren't going to convince anyone who thinks about it for more than 15 seconds that this comparison is appropriate. Much less change their opinion.

 

[glassjester]

Sorry, but that isn't enough to make any kind of comparison between elective abortion and the Final Solution. Nowhere near enough. Not in the same ballpark, league, state, or universe.

Except for the two comparisons I just made.
Or was one of those untrue?

 

[glassjester]

This has been my argument all along. I get it, you think it is a terrible thing. I can even understand why you think that way. With that said, framing it inside of that comparison is inaccurate and disrespectful. Further, you aren't going to convince anyone who thinks about it for more than 15 seconds that this comparison is appropriate. Much less change their opinion.

I agree. I don't know if that was King Cobra's purpose.

But then that raises the question, what was his purpose?

 

[Granite]

Except for the two comparisons I just made.
Or was one of those untrue?

It's ridiculous to claim based on the thinnest, barest grasping of straws that one of these things is anything like the other. To say otherwise is a complete crock.