Not sure where you’re coming from.
The Holocaust is of course no laughing matter. But the perpetrators deserve to be berated with contempt and ridicule.
Same with abortion. (Similarity)
Abortion and The Holocaust....Differences?
- Thread starter King cobra
- Start date
Not sure where you’re coming from.
The Holocaust is of course no laughing matter. But the perpetrators deserve to be berated with contempt and ridicule.
Same with abortion. (Similarity)
Was it the baby’s intent to be conceived in a particular woman’s body?
That particular woman should have no right to then intentionally, with force (without permission), invade that baby’s body with suction catheters, forceps, or any other device for the purpose of killing him/her...whether it be for his/her kidneys or so mom can be a cheerleader her senior year.
Keep trying. Or not.
So far, only three differences between abortion and The Holocaust.
1. Scale of the slaughter
2. Level of intimidation by the government (this gap may be closing)
3. Level of victims’ foreknowledge
And, so far, each difference is a matter of scope. Interesting.
1. Scale of the slaughter
2. Level of intimidation by the government (this gap may be closing)
3. Level of victims’ foreknowledge
And, so far, each difference is a matter of scope. Interesting.
The premise of your question depends on how you define a clump or pile of cells as a human being or not.
And whether or not you preference those cells over the live of the mother and the experience of the young child who takes their first breath and begins to live in the world.
But you already knew that.
Why not, it's sponging off her body...not the other way around?
One "can be certain" you'd deny the same encroachment upon your body.
Why the double standard?
Last edited:
Yes, we're talking human beings here. Not "vermin" like Nazi Himmler would say. Or a "disease" like abortionist Hern would say.
At what point and for what reason do you think "those cells" should be protected?
No answer King?
The child continues to 'sponge' off people after the child is born.
At what point would you consider 'sponging' off another to NOT be a reasonable reason to kill them?
I mean, we have a large group of folks on welfare that 'sponge' off others.
And yet, we don't get the 'option' to eliminate them from sponging off us.
If forced 'sponging' is a crime deserving of death, we are way behind on the killing of the spongers.
Nope.
Check.
Unwanted pregnancies are vilified, but only to draw attention away from the fact that people are being murdered.
Check. The US funds this practice and calls it "healthcare."
Check. A woman who becomes pregnant will often be coerced into getting an abortion, while the murderer ignores the coercion.
Check. Anti-abortion activists are routinely pursued, while murderers are sent on their way.
The only reason to deny the personhood of the unborn is to try to justify their extermination.
Just like a five-year-old is not the same as a 25-year-old.
Solely because you have denied one group their personhood.
Last edited:
glassjester
Well-known member
True. And the proof of this is in its selective application in our laws.
If I'm an unborn child, and a man tears me out of the womb and kills me, he can be charged with murder... unless he has a note from my mom saying it's alright.
Now why can my mother give permission to kill me, but if anyone else does it, it's murder?
Either I'm "murderable" or not, right?
It was a rhetorical device. The baby cannot harbor any intent.
I though this to be obvious. No?
Generally speaking, and under the context of abortion.....uhhh outside the womb. :duh:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a gray area, although there are some guidelines gynecologists can follow. But again, any native speaker of English knows this full well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they cannot be protected, then they should be made available to finding cures for disease or birth defects. We should honor, protect and help those who are truly alive and have some sort of self-awareness of themselves and their own bodies apart from the uterus.
God created Adam by breathing life into his nostrils. As a serious Christian I take that metaphor as truth.
:darwinsm:
So then it is not about the child sponging at all. Cause they still sponge off others after they are born.
Well, that's the implication you're attempting to sell...not me.
Seems like you've fully convinced yourself. :chuckle:
Think about it Tam. The fetus resides within the womb, totally reliant upon it's host's body for its survival (the mother BTW) and in the cases of an undesired pregnancy....exist as a trespass upon said mom's body.
Sure, you may not like the particular term...even though its quite accurate.
glassjester
Well-known member
You seem to be implying that the crime of trespassing should be punishable by death.
Even if that were so, you're leaving out the single most important detail from your prosecution of the unborn child: culpability.
It is not the unborn child's fault that he is there.
glassjester
Well-known member
And one more thing, Quip. You call the unborn child an unwanted trespasser.
Could I not, by your same depraved logic, charge the mother with wrongful imprisonment?
The unborn child is forced to live, through no fault or action of his own, in a place. He is not allowed to leave this place for 9 months, on punishment of death. And you have the nerve to call him a trespasser?
It would be like if someone knocked me unconscious, took me in a space shuttle up into orbit, and then said, "Now get out of my space shuttle; you're trespassing."
That's murder, man.
Could I not, by your same depraved logic, charge the mother with wrongful imprisonment?
The unborn child is forced to live, through no fault or action of his own, in a place. He is not allowed to leave this place for 9 months, on punishment of death. And you have the nerve to call him a trespasser?
It would be like if someone knocked me unconscious, took me in a space shuttle up into orbit, and then said, "Now get out of my space shuttle; you're trespassing."
That's murder, man.