Prager University on Abortion.

[Teallaura]

That just means he had time then. I haven't seen him since this morning.

[Jaecp]

I suspect others haven't answered it because they dismissed it without thinking about it, as you seem to have done (based on your answer).
I wasn't asking about the differences in what was done to the victims. I am specifically asking about the similarities between the justification for what was done. Nazis claim their victims were not people. Abortionists claim their victims are not people.

Let me rephrase for you.
What is the difference between your claim that unborn humans aren't people, and the Nazis' claim that Jews are not people? Don't define away the question, don't dismiss it out of hand, don't scoff and mock, just be serious and give me a serious answer. I really want to know.

Well, yeah, people dismissed it without thinking about it. As they should. If you're going to try to use anything related to Nazi's you need to do more than simply make the comparison. You need to really show how it's a good example because it's both overused and wildly inflammatory and, as you've already had to reframe your question at least once, you need to be pretty specific or I can go "yeah PP doesn't kidnap people at gunpoint" and say "boom, difference, new argument?" because the silly, overused Nazi comparison is just that. I will, absolutely, scoff and mock at underdeveloped nazi comparisons. They are often overused and terrible. Plus you're making the single worst kind of Nazi comparison where you haven't even done the legwork to make your claim, you've simply announced it and asked other people to explain how those two things are different! People will laugh this off because its the kind of thing one laughs off.

To your rephrased question.

Is that what the Nazi's actually said? That they weren't people? I thought the issue was that jews were supposed to be bad people, for this or that stupid reason. I have a suspicion that you might be defining the problem into existence.

[Teallaura]

I'll take that one. The Nazi propaganda and efforts to dehumanize the Jews is well documented. It ran the gamut between referring to the Jews as evil, parasites, Iower or lesser race, inhuman, vermin, and nonhuman.

Much of the pro abortion language strongly resembles the Nazi propaganda. If you ( general) didn't spend so much time pretending that the analogy cannot be valid and a lot more actually understanding why the analogy is being drawn your arguments would be a lot less dismissive and therefore less worthy of being dismissed themselves.

[Sparko]

Well, yeah, people dismissed it without thinking about it. As they should. If you're going to try to use anything related to Nazi's you need to do more than simply make the comparison. You need to really show how it's a good example because it's both overused and wildly inflammatory and, as you've already had to reframe your question at least once, you need to be pretty specific or I can go "yeah PP doesn't kidnap people at gunpoint" and say "boom, difference, new argument?" because the silly, overused Nazi comparison is just that. I will, absolutely, scoff and mock at underdeveloped nazi comparisons. They are often overused and terrible. Plus you're making the single worst kind of Nazi comparison where you haven't even done the legwork to make your claim, you've simply announced it and asked other people to explain how those two things are different! People will laugh this off because its the kind of thing one laughs off.

To your rephrased question.

Is that what the Nazi's actually said? That they weren't people? I thought the issue was that jews were supposed to be bad people, for this or that stupid reason. I have a suspicion that you might be defining the problem into existence.

1. Yes the Nazi's considered the Jews to be subhuman
http://www.holocaustresearchproject....termensch.html
" Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.

Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy. "

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying cultures throughout time, including the Nazis, categorized their victims as not being persons in order to legally kill or experiment or sell them, without feeling guilt. It is what YOU and PP do when you claim that a fetus is not a person (like your idiotic argument that an acorn is not a tree) - You dismiss their worth as human beings by claiming they have no rights because they are not persons. Congratulations, you are a modern day Nazi.

[rogue06]

Well, yeah, people dismissed it without thinking about it. As they should. If you're going to try to use anything related to Nazi's you need to do more than simply make the comparison. You need to really show how it's a good example because it's both overused and wildly inflammatory and, as you've already had to reframe your question at least once, you need to be pretty specific or I can go "yeah PP doesn't kidnap people at gunpoint" and say "boom, difference, new argument?" because the silly, overused Nazi comparison is just that. I will, absolutely, scoff and mock at underdeveloped nazi comparisons. They are often overused and terrible. Plus you're making the single worst kind of Nazi comparison where you haven't even done the legwork to make your claim, you've simply announced it and asked other people to explain how those two things are different! People will laugh this off because its the kind of thing one laughs off.

To your rephrased question.

Is that what the Nazi's actually said? That they weren't people? I thought the issue was that jews were supposed to be bad people, for this or that stupid reason. I have a suspicion that you might be defining the problem into existence.

The classed them as "sub-humans" and often likened them with germs and viruses infecting the human body that needed to be eliminated. Another analogy that was commonly employed was comparing them to a cancer and saying that humanity needed to "eradicate the parasitic growth."

Interesting that some among the pro-abortion crowd compare being pregnant like being infested with a parasite. Look up "The fetus is a parasite" at the Daily Kos for just one example (no link due to language).

[rogue06]

1. Yes the Nazi's considered the Jews to be subhuman
http://www.holocaustresearchproject....termensch.html
" Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.

Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy. "

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying cultures throughout time, including the Nazis, categorized their victims as not being persons in order to legally kill or experiment or sell them, without feeling guilt. It is what YOU and PP do when you claim that a fetus is not a person (like your idiotic argument that an acorn is not a tree) - You dismiss their worth as human beings by claiming they have no rights because they are not persons. Congratulations, you are a modern day Nazi.

If you can succeed in dehumanizing the victim it makes it easier to kill.

[Darth Ovious]

I'm just going to link what I said in another post.

Yes we know about your belief that those arbitrary attributes are the way you define a "person". Your problem is you don't realise your view is anti-scientific and against reality. The reason why this is the case is because you start with your conclusion that a human fetus should be able to be aborted and then you look the timeline of human being development and look for markers along that line of development that agree with you at what stage you should be allowed to abort. You pick out these markers, because it lets you believe you can abort a fetus readily and are completely ignorant in the understanding that not all human life has the same abilities as other humans at different stages of development and that just because you have different attributes at different stages of development then this in now way makes you any less human. In other words you are being ableist to those humans who have not yet developed certain traits that other humans have but will have if you leave to develop normally.

[RumTumTugger]

If you can succeed in dehumanizing the victim it makes it easier to kill.

like the Hutu did with the Tutsi in Rwanda by calling them cockroaches

[Sparko]

If you can succeed in dehumanizing the victim it makes it easier to kill.

And it helps to convince the public to go along with you.

[Cerebrum123]

You aren't allowed to destroy an eagle egg. You'll go to jail.

Even picking up a feather you find from one will cost you a lot of money. I've seen the number as high as $100,000.

[QuantaFille]

Well, yeah, people dismissed it without thinking about it. As they should. If you're going to try to use anything related to Nazi's you need to do more than simply make the comparison. You need to really show how it's a good example because it's both overused and wildly inflammatory and, as you've already had to reframe your question at least once, you need to be pretty specific or I can go "yeah PP doesn't kidnap people at gunpoint" and say "boom, difference, new argument?" because the silly, overused Nazi comparison is just that. I will, absolutely, scoff and mock at underdeveloped nazi comparisons. They are often overused and terrible. Plus you're making the single worst kind of Nazi comparison where you haven't even done the legwork to make your claim, you've simply announced it and asked other people to explain how those two things are different! People will laugh this off because its the kind of thing one laughs off.

To your rephrased question.

Is that what the Nazi's actually said? That they weren't people? I thought the issue was that jews were supposed to be bad people, for this or that stupid reason. I have a suspicion that you might be defining the problem into existence.

Translation:
"I haven't actually thought about it, and never will, so nyaahh!"

I did want to continue the discussion, but since you seem to be rather resistant to logic I don't think we'll get anywhere.

[Jaecp]

Translation:
"I haven't actually thought about it, and never will, so nyaahh!"

I did want to continue the discussion, but since you seem to be rather resistant to logic I don't think we'll get anywhere.

Rather resistant to logic? What logic? There are serious problems with the basic validity of your claim that needs cleared up before it becomes worthwhile

As to whether we'd get anywhere that really depends on whether you can argue in favor of the comparison.

[QuantaFille]

Rather resistant to logic? What logic? There are serious problems with the basic validity of your claim that needs cleared up before it becomes worthwhile

As to whether we'd get anywhere that really depends on whether you can argue in favor of the comparison.

Seriously? You complained that I had to rephrase it, but I did so because the whole point of the question had sailed clear over your head and your answer didn't even pertain to the question I actually asked. The point is still sailing over your head!
If you still can't see the similarities in various groups of people declaring groups of inconvenient people as "not really human" so that they can kill them, then I can't help you. It's really very basic. You're just dodging. If the answer is so obvious to you, why can't you just come out and say it?

[Psychic Missile]

Abortion is the act of deliberately harming someone's body against their will. You are contradicting yourself when one minute you say it's OK to harm someone else against their will, and the next you say it's not OK. Pregnancy, in the vast majority of cases, does no harm to the mother. Abortion does tremendous harm to at least the child. When deciding whose rights supersede the other's, the option that causes the least harm must be chosen. To do otherwise is absurd and immoral by ANY definition of morality.
In cases of rape, violence should not be answered with more violence, especially when the violence enacted in response to the initial violence is perpetrated against an innocent third party. You might as well go murder a random homeless person in response to having your home broken into. It makes just as much sense. Rape victims must receive counselling and be given the option to put the child up for adoption, absolutely. Coming to terms with what happened and being given a chance to heal emotionally is critical. Killing the aforementioned innocent third party is detrimental to healing and many rape victims regret doing so. She shouldn't be forced to keep the child of course, especially if she isn't in a situation where she could care for one but many DO keep the child and don't regret it. Encouraging violence in response to violence never got anyone anywhere.

It is okay to harm someone if they violate another's rights and the only way to stop that violation is harm. If someone tried to kill you, you would be within your rights to kill your would-be murderer in self defense, since that is, at that hypothetical moment, the only way to stop their violation of your rights.

Pregnancy causes harm and has the potential for harm. Pregnancy radically alters a woman's body, both temporarily and permanently. It can be life threatening or require surgery.

I don't really care about rape exceptions for abortion. I think a woman should be able to abort for any reason.

No, we just want women to be responsible adults about it. I have an idea. How about women who don't want to BE pregnant, don't GET pregnant in the first place? Use contraception, and/or don't sleep around. It's not rocket surgery. The CDC's stats on abortion say that in the vast majority of abortions, the mother was either not using any contraception at all or was using it inconsistently or sporadically. Does that sound like the behaviour of a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant? She invited the child, whether intentionally or not. Fact. In the cat analogy, it's like filling your house with open cans of tuna and opening all the doors and windows, and then shooting the cats who come in. BUT, the cats will eventually leave the house on their own (probably after the tuna runs out), and the child will eventually exit the womb on his/her own as well. No killing is necessary in either case. Pregnancy isn't permanent.

If someone dies because they didn't buckle their seatbelt, that doesn't mean they wanted to die. If someone trips because they left something on the floor, that doesn't mean they wanted to trip. If a woman wants a child, they simply will not abort.

[Psychic Missile]

Only someone totally and completely ignorant of the Constitution and how constitutional law works would say something that utterly idiotic. I suppose you would have said the same drivel to MLK when he was fighting for civil rights. ''Well, separate but equal is the law now so sitting at that lunch counter and saying Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong is pointless...'

Seriously, PM. that is just an ignorant thing to say. If you can't argue the point because constitutional law isn't your thing it's fine to just say so. That isn't a concession of the point. But don't try garbage like a school kid in hopes that no one will notice.

Whether a law or ruling is Constitutional or not depends, ultimately, upon the arbitrary opinions of the Supreme Court justices. No matter how good your argument that abortion is not Constitutional and should have been ruled differently, it doesn't matter unless you have the ear of a present or future justice and the case comes up.