This webpage is a defense of why the prolife side is justified in comparing abortion to the Holocaust. When I first saw this page, after only reading the first couple of paragraphs, it deeply disturbed me and made me sick. I wanted to revisit it at another time, when I was more level headed. I am glad I did. Its complete rubbish.
Here is my rebuttal. I recommend reading the whole webpage, but I did included quotes of the parts I offered rebuttals to as indicated by the arrow bracket >
>Pro-choice adherents usually object when pro-lifers refer to an American “abortion Holocaust.”
Abortion exists everywhere...
>If the comparison were obviously false, it should soon fall into disuse. However, if pro‑abortionists feel driven to denounce it with such vehemence, we can conclude that it is at least partially true or they wouldn’t feel so threatened by it.
By this standard, since anti abortionists feel driven to denounce abortion with such vehemence, we can also conclude that the right to abortion being between a person and their doctor is at least partially true or else they wouldnt feel so threatened by it. This accusation holds no argumentative weight.
This is the 4th paragraph down. We are only in the introduction. This is how they are setting the stage for their rebuttals to being told to not use the Holocaust to compare abortion to... I have little faith their reasoning will convince me. But I will give it the benefit of a doubt.
>However, pro-choice adherents do not respond with the same vehemence when other political platforms use the Holocaust analogy on serious issues. They did not object when Oregon environmentalists said that “Salmon were found dead in a net pen below the Ice Harbor Dam Monday, where scientists were monitoring the migration . . . . This isn’t just a case of salmon murder. It’s a Holocaust. What do we do to stop it?”3
This is such an obscure reference to use. I have never even heard of this, and I LIVE in Oregon.
Has someone somewhere used the Holocaust to defend a view of theirs inappropriately? Probably. It doesnt mean that pro-choicers were not offended by it nor does it justify anti abortionists use of it.
>Nor did they raise their voices in protest when Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), compared Jews to chickens. She claimed that “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals. They all feel pain . . . . 6 million people died in concentration camps, but 6 billion chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”4
Who is ''they?'' Pro-choice organizations? They arent going to comment on this because it has nothing to do with abortion.
Democrats? Again, they arent going to comment on this because it has nothing to do with abortion and politics rarely has any interest in passing laws for the welfare of animals. This isnt something they deal with, so probably were not even informed about it. Or if they were, their silence does not necessarily mean they didnt find it in poor taste. Just that they had no reason to bring it to public attention.
So far though, the defense for why they can use the Holocaust is pointing the finger at somebody else.
>By comparison, current-day “women’s choice physicians” perform “evacuations of the uterine contents” or “voluntary interruptions of pregnancy” in “reproductive health centers,” and dispose of the “sub-human non-personhood,” “protoplasmic rubbish” and “human waste” in little ovens built for the purpose of disposing of late-term aborted babies.
There is no source provided by the author that this has been said by anyone pro-choice, let alone one in a powerful prochoice position such as reproductive rights groups, politicians or even medical board members, as the Nazis were. I have to count this as a lie without such a source.
I find it ironic that reproductive health centers is in quotes though. This is an attempt to pretend that pregnancy is not something that affects ones physical health.
There has been an attempt from the Religious Right to discredit abortion, and by extension, pregnancy as a health condition. I think they are starting to actually believe this now. Things that are not health conditions do no usually cause one to get diabetes or high blood pressure. If it was not a health condition, people wouldnt have to go to a hospital for their deliveries, or even need a trained doula. They wouldnt die if something went wrong.
I get that they do not want to admit that they think that the uteruses only purpose is to carry a pregnancy and want us to view it as mundane and ordinary as eating or going to the bathroom. I get that they think that it being so common, abortion is somehow treating pregnancy, treating fertility, as if it were a disease. And since it isnt a disease, it isnt a health condition. I find this to be a very poor understanding of the effects and complications of pregnancy. And people who attempt to underplay what pregnancy is and the dangers that come with it, have no ground to stand on when they say that abortion isnt healthcare.
>Guttmacher, a former President of Planned Parenthood and Vice-President of the American Eugenics Society, stated that: “Abortion is precisely equivalent to operating on an appendix or removing a gangrenous bowel.”
I did a google search for this sentence and nothing came up. Considering it is in quotes, it is supposedly word for word. Given the obscurity of the source, it seems unlikely that it would not have been included in the appendix. Unless it was a lie.
>One of the earliest Nazi modifications to the German Penal Code was made by the Hamburg Eugenics Court in 1933. It reads, “A doctor may interrupt a pregnancy when it threatens the life or health of the mother. An unborn child that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be destroyed.” The American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code of 1962, which was cited in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, used nearly identical justification: “A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes that the pregnancy would impair the physical/mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect.”
We know what the motives of the Nazi movement were. We know that their goal was eugenics. Yes, abortion can be a tool of eugenics. Guns can also be a tool of eugenics but no one accuses gun owners or makers as eugenicists.
I am unsure what this guys objection to health of the mother exemptions is (I suppose I will find out more in the linked article) I can at least address the fetal defects aspect.
Mothers who are far along enough in their pregnancy to find fetal defects have wanted pregnancies. These women are having abortions as a mercy to their child so that they will not suffer, die, or lead a low quality of life. The attempt to malign women who have abortions because of genetic abnormalities with that of Nazis grossly misrepresents the intentions of these mothers. It is dishonest to do such just to further push your agenda. If you want to advocate that women should not be getting these types of abortions, that is one thing. But it is another to suggest they are Nazis because of it. Hence, why we find this reprehensible.
>During the Nuremberg Doctor Trial of 1947, Dr. Gebhard Rose said, “The victims of this Buchenwald typhus test [victims who were intentionally and fatally infected] did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain. People were saved by these experiments.”
In their defense of experiments on living late-term aborted babies, Drs. Willard Gaylin and Mark Lappe claimed, “In the case of abortion, the fetus is doomed to death anyhow, but perhaps its death can be ennobled when the research has as its objective the saving of the lives of other, wanted fetuses.”
Yeah, a lot of modern medicine is based in the infliction of suffering and torture of human beings. Your point? What does this have to do with abortion? If you really dont understand that fetuses are physically incapable of feeling pain until the earliest possible time of 24 weeks, then again, you do not know much about pregnancy or fetal development. Please step off your soapbox and do some research.
You have made a good case against abortion laws though, with the Gebhard Rose quote. I, too, fully denounce the torture and suffering of other human beings to save the lives of others. That is why I am against abortion laws. You do not get to torture other human beings with forced continued pregnancy in order to save the life of another. If you cant understand why forced pregnancy would be torturous, again, you do not know much about pregnancy. Please stop reading this and go actually learn about the effects pregnancy can have on the body.
>The famous Chicago-Sun Times series “The Abortion Profiteers” reported, “Dr. Ming K. Hah, reputed to be the fastest abortionist in Chicago… Eight abortions per hour, forty per day. His productivity rate is so impressive that he sometimes performs two abortions simultaneously.”
You had to go back to 1978 for this.... Nothing recent, huh? Anyway, one doctor does not represent the whole. Is Dr. Ming somehow implicated in the invention of abortion? No? Then maybe his opinions do not matter as a single person. Thats like saying that because farmer A beats his animals with a whip, farmer B should also be barred from farming.
But I would actually like to know why you thought using a doctor who lost their medical license was a strong argument to use... https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/14/nyregion/doctor-with-revoked-license-is-arrested-in-abortion-case.html
In the end, none of the arguments take a woman and her body, nor her rights, into consideration. In fact, the word woman is nowhere to be found in this page and the word ''women'' only appears when they are referencing a quote they present as having been said by the pro-choice side. Enough said... No, this article did not convince me they are justified in their explotation of the horrendous acts committed against Jewish people.
Comments
Post a Comment