Anyone who sneers at pro-abortion/Nazi parallels should watch this:

[Jimmy_Jam]

Just pointing out the parallels.

We aren't talking about highways. We're talking about eugenics. And the progressives who promote negative eugenics today are the same as..no, worse...than the people who supported the eugenic practices of the Nazis.

You're worse because you have seen where it ends. And you still promote it and fight for the exact same policies that the Nazis employed.

Disgusting.

Come on now, KG. I get your OP, but I think you may be getting carried away here. I've always been of the mind that the original eugenics movement was based upon a genuine wish for the benefit of humanity. I agree that eugenics is a flawed ideology, but those that believe in it are not inherently evil, as you seem to think. Eugenics is a response to a set of problems, and I have always understood that, as should you.

As I've pointed out before, there's a reason why "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche. If the result of your actions is the Holocaust, does it really matter whether you MEANT for that to happen? And if the result of your actions is massive evil, does it matter if YOU were inherently evil?

KG isn't necessarily saying that all pro-abortion people are inherently evil people who know where their attitudes will lead and want to go there. She's saying their ACTIONS and ATTITUDES are evil, and they are deluding themselves as to that fact. Their evil isn't in intention, but in willful ignorance.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is another cliche that got that way for a good reason.

IMHO, the value of the lesson of the Nazis is not that pro-lifers are smart and just and pro-choicers are stupid and depraved. Instead, the value in the lesson lies in the contemplation of whether or not the potential dangers of eugenics policies outweigh any potential benefit. I believe that it does, and it is that regard that any comparison of any aspect of eugenics to it's worst possible outcome, is appropriate. Dedicated pro-choicers, the more extreme ones, will inevitably come to the support of some a eugenics policy when debating the subject, whether consciously or not, because the potential justifications will always mirror eugenics ideologies. Because Nazis represent the worst potential of eugenics, it is equally inevitable that their opponents will come to that comparison.

In my never-humble opinion, you need to get over the need to make this a personal attack on individual people, and recognize that it's about the attitudes and philosophies. No one said pro-lifers themselves were smarter or more just as human beings, or that pro-abortionists were more depraved (I'm afraid I DO have to say they're more stupid, but only because they choose to be). It's the attitudes and philosophies that are either more just or more depraved. It's depraved to say that disabled people are less valuable as human beings; it's depraved to say that human life is disposable.

I imagine that, to those that advocate some form of eugenics, whatever the justification, must be exceedingly annoyed when the Nazis come up, but any serious discussion of the subject must invariably include it, and is therefore appropriate. I think you and I may simply disagree on why the inclusion is important.

Oh, I imagine that it IS very annoying to those who advocate eugenics to have the realities of what they advocate thrown up in their faces, but I can't say that I really much give a shit. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to advocate evil, you forfeit any claim on the respect of others.

Well, I tend to annoy both parties of a debate frequently, so no surprise here.

Anyway, I think you understand that I recognize the comparison and understand it's relevance. I don't trouble myself with standing on one side or the other of the "line in the sand" on this issue. I believe that unborn life deserves some level of protection under the law because it is a human life. My problem with extremists on this issue is that both lack a respect for human life in some way or another. Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life. People see the issue as a war, and in war people have to pick sides. I get it. It leaves little room for people like me who would prefer to simply recognize a problem and attempt to find a practical solution. On this particular matter, comparing Nazi ideologies and eugenics, I happen to agree with pro-lifers that the comparison is relevant, and to the chagrin of pro-choicers I'm sure. So be it. But in the process it seems I may be ruffling some pro-life feathers as well.

 

[Koios]

Just pointing out the parallels.

We aren't talking about highways. We're talking about eugenics. And the progressives who promote negative eugenics today are the same as..no, worse...than the people who supported the eugenic practices of the Nazis.

You're worse because you have seen where it ends. And you still promote it and fight for the exact same policies that the Nazis employed.

Disgusting.

Copy that. Being I'm a Libby, and thus hate kids, especially the unborn ones, crush their rotten little skulls. Pro-Abortion, not Pro-Choice!!!

Whew.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Come on now, KG. I get your OP, but I think you may be getting carried away here. I've always been of the mind that the original eugenics movement was based upon a genuine wish for the benefit of humanity. I agree that eugenics is a flawed ideology, but those that believe in it are not inherently evil, as you seem to think. Eugenics is a response to a set of problems, and I have always understood that, as should you.

As I've pointed out before, there's a reason why "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche. If the result of your actions is the Holocaust, does it really matter whether you MEANT for that to happen? And if the result of your actions is massive evil, does it matter if YOU were inherently evil?

KG isn't necessarily saying that all pro-abortion people are inherently evil people who know where their attitudes will lead and want to go there. She's saying their ACTIONS and ATTITUDES are evil, and they are deluding themselves as to that fact. Their evil isn't in intention, but in willful ignorance.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is another cliche that got that way for a good reason.



In my never-humble opinion, you need to get over the need to make this a personal attack on individual people, and recognize that it's about the attitudes and philosophies. No one said pro-lifers themselves were smarter or more just as human beings, or that pro-abortionists were more depraved (I'm afraid I DO have to say they're more stupid, but only because they choose to be). It's the attitudes and philosophies that are either more just or more depraved. It's depraved to say that disabled people are less valuable as human beings; it's depraved to say that human life is disposable.

I imagine that, to those that advocate some form of eugenics, whatever the justification, must be exceedingly annoyed when the Nazis come up, but any serious discussion of the subject must invariably include it, and is therefore appropriate. I think you and I may simply disagree on why the inclusion is important.

Oh, I imagine that it IS very annoying to those who advocate eugenics to have the realities of what they advocate thrown up in their faces, but I can't say that I really much give a shit. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to advocate evil, you forfeit any claim on the respect of others.

Well, I tend to annoy both parties of a debate frequently, so no surprise here.

Anyway, I think you understand that I recognize the comparison and understand it's relevance. I don't trouble myself with standing on one side or the other of the "line in the sand" on this issue. I believe that unborn life deserves some level of protection under the law because it is a human life. My problem with extremists on this issue is that both lack a respect for human life in some way or another. Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life. People see the issue as a war, and in war people have to pick sides. I get it. It leaves little room for people like me who would prefer to simply recognize a problem and attempt to find a practical solution. On this particular matter, comparing Nazi ideologies and eugenics, I happen to agree with pro-lifers that the comparison is relevant, and to the chagrin of pro-choicers I'm sure. So be it. But in the process it seems I may be ruffling some pro-life feathers as well.

Well, with all due respect, the problem with proclaiming yourself "middle of the road, the only REALLY sensible people" is that you end up spending more time and energy trying to appear perfectly balanced between the two sides than you do actually dealing with the realities of the issue.

Case in point: "Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life."

On what do you base this sentence, other than a fence-sitting need to appear to criticize both sides equally so that you appear "moderate"? In what way do pro-lifers "seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs"? Be specific, and please make it an example that actually deals with pro-lifers generally, not some isolated whackjob who is condemned and shunned by everyone on both sides.

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something.

 

[koshergrl]

Just pointing out the parallels.

We aren't talking about highways. We're talking about eugenics. And the progressives who promote negative eugenics today are the same as..no, worse...than the people who supported the eugenic practices of the Nazis.

You're worse because you have seen where it ends. And you still promote it and fight for the exact same policies that the Nazis employed.

Disgusting.

Copy that. Being I'm a Libby, and thus hate kids, especially the unborn ones, crush their rotten little skulls. Pro-Abortion, not Pro-Choice!!!

Whew.

Oh I'm sure you're okay with kids...the right kids, in the right places, with the right parents.

The rest, to progressives, have no value, and the world is better off without them.

Which is exactly what the nazis believed. They got that belief straight from the US...and it's still flourishing here. We're set for a holocaust. We've got the right leader, the right press, the right pseudo science fads, and our wonderful "health" system that will be in full swing by 2014.

Enjoy. You'll get to shoulder the blame for a whole lot of nastiness coming your way. Be proud of your pro-abortion status! Stand tall for euthanasia! You represent a stronger, smarter, better provided for population! Woo hoo!

 

[JoeB131]

"funditards" amuses me about as much as "libtards." If I were either I would probably be offended.

The OP, despite being a bit extreme, is pointing out an ideological similarity between Nazi eugenics and those that support an unconditional right to abortion, as if life in the womb should be afforded no protection under any circumstances. My views are certainly more moderate than koshergrl's, but I do believe in some level of protection. It has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn, just as protecting animals to some level has nothing to do with them having rights. Some level of protection is justified. It's only the extremists that must either protect all unborn life indiscriminately or terminate all unborn life indiscriminately, both offering only ideological solutions rather than examining the problem.

I have examined the problem. The thing is, women got abortions before they were legal, and they'll get them if they are ever made illegal again.

None of this removes the correlation, no matter how much the correlation may annoy. Planned Parenthood, whether one views their existence as benign or malignant, has it's origins in the American eugenics movement, which in turn inspired the Nazis. This is fairly well-documented stuff and not just the ravings of conspiracy theorists. PP has since dropped the open endorsement of "eugenics," mostly because of those negative connotations, and likewise softened their touch, but still retain at least some of their original intent: prevention of unfit offspring, or offspring born to unfit parents.

PP dropped its support of Eugenics because as a science, it was severely flawed. But people didn't know that in the 1920's, when they were just starting to understand the link between genetics and disease, but didn't have a firm grasp on it. Today, 91% of women who get prenatal testing for Down Syndrome abort. Conservative, Fundimentalist and Republican women not withstanding. They don't call it "Eugenics", but that's the net effect.

Does this make those who support reproductive rights Nazis? No. The OP may possibly think so, as would the far righties floating around USMB, no doubt, but no. In my experience, a rational person who supports reproductive rights is usually supportive of some level of protection for unborn life as well.

Despite the possible "transparent" intent of the OP, it does not remove the unfortunate correlation between the eugenics movement and Nazi ideologies, as stale and unoriginal as that may seem. While my views may be more moderate, this comparison does not bother me. If anything, the Nazis provide us with a grim reminder of the unfortunate potential of a eugenics policy. Godwin's Law, as valid as it is in most cases, has also become a scapegoat.

Honestly, this is about as honest as saying Vegetarians are Evil because Hitler was a vegetarian....

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

As I've pointed out before, there's a reason why "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche. If the result of your actions is the Holocaust, does it really matter whether you MEANT for that to happen? And if the result of your actions is massive evil, does it matter if YOU were inherently evil?

KG isn't necessarily saying that all pro-abortion people are inherently evil people who know where their attitudes will lead and want to go there. She's saying their ACTIONS and ATTITUDES are evil, and they are deluding themselves as to that fact. Their evil isn't in intention, but in willful ignorance.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is another cliche that got that way for a good reason.



In my never-humble opinion, you need to get over the need to make this a personal attack on individual people, and recognize that it's about the attitudes and philosophies. No one said pro-lifers themselves were smarter or more just as human beings, or that pro-abortionists were more depraved (I'm afraid I DO have to say they're more stupid, but only because they choose to be). It's the attitudes and philosophies that are either more just or more depraved. It's depraved to say that disabled people are less valuable as human beings; it's depraved to say that human life is disposable.



Oh, I imagine that it IS very annoying to those who advocate eugenics to have the realities of what they advocate thrown up in their faces, but I can't say that I really much give a shit. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to advocate evil, you forfeit any claim on the respect of others.

Well, I tend to annoy both parties of a debate frequently, so no surprise here.

Anyway, I think you understand that I recognize the comparison and understand it's relevance. I don't trouble myself with standing on one side or the other of the "line in the sand" on this issue. I believe that unborn life deserves some level of protection under the law because it is a human life. My problem with extremists on this issue is that both lack a respect for human life in some way or another. Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life. People see the issue as a war, and in war people have to pick sides. I get it. It leaves little room for people like me who would prefer to simply recognize a problem and attempt to find a practical solution. On this particular matter, comparing Nazi ideologies and eugenics, I happen to agree with pro-lifers that the comparison is relevant, and to the chagrin of pro-choicers I'm sure. So be it. But in the process it seems I may be ruffling some pro-life feathers as well.

Well, with all due respect, the problem with proclaiming yourself "middle of the road, the only REALLY sensible people" is that you end up spending more time and energy trying to appear perfectly balanced between the two sides than you do actually dealing with the realities of the issue.

Case in point: "Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life."

On what do you base this sentence, other than a fence-sitting need to appear to criticize both sides equally so that you appear "moderate"? In what way do pro-lifers "seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs"? Be specific, and please make it an example that actually deals with pro-lifers generally, not some isolated whackjob who is condemned and shunned by everyone on both sides.

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something.

Good questions. I base the sentence on the fact that I'm talking about hardliners. So, it will be impossible for me not to talk about isolated whackjobs if I'm talking about hardliners, won't it? Additionally, why don't you ask me to do the same with pro-choicers? I would suspect that it's because you have no problem with my observations of pro-choicers.

In any case, I can use Rep. Todd Akins as one example. His claim that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant illustrates this hardline posture to which I am referring. While he may not speak for all pro-lifers, it still illustrates an "all costs" ideology that will protect any and all unborn human life with little to no regard for the living. I've seen and heard similar sentiments echoed frequently.

You are free to criticize my more moderate ways as wishy-washy, non-committal, cowardly, etc. I've heard it all. You're right, I do enjoy criticizing far lefties and far righties equally, and will continue to do so. I doesn't mean I don't recognize valid points by either when I see them.

My main question for you would be why, despite me essentially agreeing with the primary comparison, do you find it so important to take me to task?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Honestly, this is about as honest as saying Vegetarians are Evil because Hitler was a vegetarian....

Well, hippies do drive a lot of Volkswagens.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something

I happen to believe that uniting Americans rather than dividing them is worth something.

I'm not saying I'm very good at the cause, because I tend to offend more people than you could probably ever know, but it is well worth the energy expenditure on the rare occasions that I actually do reach someone, and equally worth it when I learn something.

 

[mamooth]

Oh, so you are saying it's financially sound to abort and euthanise.

Cue patriotic music.

Wow. You and Cecille really are unrepenetant assholes. Mocking the pain someone felt as their father was tortured by the medical establishment is may not be a record low for this board, but it's down there.

Has no one ever broken the news of your total assholeism to you before? Why is it always up to me to stage these interventions? The reason all the other conservatives and pro-lifers won't come near this thread is because you two are such total assholes of human beings.

 

[koshergrl]

Well, I tend to annoy both parties of a debate frequently, so no surprise here.

Anyway, I think you understand that I recognize the comparison and understand it's relevance. I don't trouble myself with standing on one side or the other of the "line in the sand" on this issue. I believe that unborn life deserves some level of protection under the law because it is a human life. My problem with extremists on this issue is that both lack a respect for human life in some way or another. Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life. People see the issue as a war, and in war people have to pick sides. I get it. It leaves little room for people like me who would prefer to simply recognize a problem and attempt to find a practical solution. On this particular matter, comparing Nazi ideologies and eugenics, I happen to agree with pro-lifers that the comparison is relevant, and to the chagrin of pro-choicers I'm sure. So be it. But in the process it seems I may be ruffling some pro-life feathers as well.

Well, with all due respect, the problem with proclaiming yourself "middle of the road, the only REALLY sensible people" is that you end up spending more time and energy trying to appear perfectly balanced between the two sides than you do actually dealing with the realities of the issue.

Case in point: "Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life."

On what do you base this sentence, other than a fence-sitting need to appear to criticize both sides equally so that you appear "moderate"? In what way do pro-lifers "seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs"? Be specific, and please make it an example that actually deals with pro-lifers generally, not some isolated whackjob who is condemned and shunned by everyone on both sides.

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something.

Good questions. I base the sentence on the fact that I'm talking about hardliners. So, it will be impossible for me not to talk about isolated whackjobs if I'm talking about hardliners, won't it? Additionally, why don't you ask me to do the same with pro-choicers? I would suspect that it's because you have no problem with my observations of pro-choicers.

In any case, I can use Rep. Todd Akins as one example. His claim that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant illustrates this hardline posture to which I am referring. While he may not speak for all pro-lifers, it still illustrates an "all costs" ideology that will protect any and all unborn human life with little to no regard for the living. I've seen and heard similar sentiments echoed frequently.

You are free to criticize my more moderate ways as wishy-washy, non-committal, cowardly, etc. I've heard it all. You're right, I do enjoy criticizing far lefties and far righties equally, and will continue to do so. I doesn't mean I don't recognize valid points by either when I see them.

My main question for you would be why, despite me essentially agreeing with the primary comparison, do you find it so important to take me to task?

Because it's that sort of wishy washiness that screws us over in the end, and allows fascists to step in and take control.

As they have.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, so you are saying it's financially sound to abort and euthanise.

Cue patriotic music.

Wow. You and Cecille really are unrepenetant assholes. Mocking the pain someone felt as their father was tortured by the medical establishment is may not be a record low for this board, but it's down there.

Has no one ever broken the news of your total assholeism to you before? Why is it always up to me to stage these interventions? The reason all the other conservatives and pro-lifers won't come near this thread is because you two are such total assholes of human beings.

When was the last time you had anything of note to offer to any conversation?

Weren't you going to point out the specific lies that I've told, and provide some evidence that they were lies?

Lol..I'm joking. Of course you weren't.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Well, with all due respect, the problem with proclaiming yourself "middle of the road, the only REALLY sensible people" is that you end up spending more time and energy trying to appear perfectly balanced between the two sides than you do actually dealing with the realities of the issue.

Case in point: "Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life."

On what do you base this sentence, other than a fence-sitting need to appear to criticize both sides equally so that you appear "moderate"? In what way do pro-lifers "seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs"? Be specific, and please make it an example that actually deals with pro-lifers generally, not some isolated whackjob who is condemned and shunned by everyone on both sides.

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something.

Good questions. I base the sentence on the fact that I'm talking about hardliners. So, it will be impossible for me not to talk about isolated whackjobs if I'm talking about hardliners, won't it? Additionally, why don't you ask me to do the same with pro-choicers? I would suspect that it's because you have no problem with my observations of pro-choicers.

In any case, I can use Rep. Todd Akins as one example. His claim that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant illustrates this hardline posture to which I am referring. While he may not speak for all pro-lifers, it still illustrates an "all costs" ideology that will protect any and all unborn human life with little to no regard for the living. I've seen and heard similar sentiments echoed frequently.

You are free to criticize my more moderate ways as wishy-washy, non-committal, cowardly, etc. I've heard it all. You're right, I do enjoy criticizing far lefties and far righties equally, and will continue to do so. I doesn't mean I don't recognize valid points by either when I see them.

My main question for you would be why, despite me essentially agreeing with the primary comparison, do you find it so important to take me to task?

Because it's that sort of wishy washiness that screws us over in the end, and allows fascists to step in and take control.

As they have.

Have it your way. I was only trying to encourage a dialogue. We were once a far more united nation, and to our benefit. The growing number of extremists in the U.S. is not a sign of good things, believe me.

 

[koshergrl]

There are some practices and beliefs we should not lend credence to. And we've reached the point where it's time to stop.

 

[PratchettFan]

I get it. I'm not defending koshergrl, per se, as I don't share her more extreme views on the subject. I simply don't see how there is no comparison.

I have seen too many debates about the subject, and too many times have I see pro-life advocates go down the eugenics path on their own, without any help from conservatives trying to steer them there. It's simply too difficult to discuss eugenics without the Nazi tie-in. That's not my fault. They have too much in common not to.

The problem with this is that "eugenics" is not in the title of the thread. The Nazis were the government. Therefore, any programs they implemented were enforced. Now, if you can show that abortion is being imposed upon those who don't want an abortion, then you might have an argument for some kind of comparison. However, if "pro-abortion" actually translates to the right of the individual to obtain an abortion if they - not the government - so choose, then you have no argument at all.

Nice try at diversion, but not the point at all. Did the thread title say, "Look, our government is the same as the Nazis"? No. It said the attitudes and justifications of liberals are the same as the Nazis. The fact that they must use different methods to achieve the same end does not negate the end being the same.

Not a diversion at all. Unless you can demonstrate the imposition of abortion upon the individual then there is no comparison. Of course, I suspect imposing your views upon others is precisely where you are coming from, so there may be a comparison on your side. But certainly not upon those who would leave that decision up to the individual who has to live with it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I get it. I'm not defending koshergrl, per se, as I don't share her more extreme views on the subject. I simply don't see how there is no comparison.

I have seen too many debates about the subject, and too many times have I see pro-life advocates go down the eugenics path on their own, without any help from conservatives trying to steer them there. It's simply too difficult to discuss eugenics without the Nazi tie-in. That's not my fault. They have too much in common not to.

The problem with this is that "eugenics" is not in the title of the thread. The Nazis were the government. Therefore, any programs they implemented were enforced. Now, if you can show that abortion is being imposed upon those who don't want an abortion, then you might have an argument for some kind of comparison. However, if "pro-abortion" actually translates to the right of the individual to obtain an abortion if they - not the government - so choose, then you have no argument at all.

I'm not arguing so much as exploring. Try not to attach anything more to it than that.

Then I would offer that your exploration of this comparison has reached a dead end. So long as it is not being imposed there is no comparison.

 

[koshergrl]

We are at the exact same point that pre-WWII germany was, when Hitler was grooming the population to look the other way while he implemented the policies that would lead to the holocaust.

But progressives now will continue to deny, deny, deny.

Because ultimately, they are okay with the Holocaust. They would just tweak it a little...if THEY were in control, it would be done much more neatly...blah blah blah.

 

[koshergrl]

The problem with this is that "eugenics" is not in the title of the thread. The Nazis were the government. Therefore, any programs they implemented were enforced. Now, if you can show that abortion is being imposed upon those who don't want an abortion, then you might have an argument for some kind of comparison. However, if "pro-abortion" actually translates to the right of the individual to obtain an abortion if they - not the government - so choose, then you have no argument at all.

I'm not arguing so much as exploring. Try not to attach anything more to it than that.

Then I would offer that your exploration of this comparison has reached a dead end. So long as it is not being imposed there is no comparison.

It is imposed..we are fighting to keep it from being imposed much more widely.

"A judge in Massachusetts ordered that a pregnant woman with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have an abortion against her will and be sterilized at the same time."
Massachusetts judge orders mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized - Andrea's Agenda by Andrea Johnson - MinotDailyNews.com | News, sports, business, jobs - Minot Daily News

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not arguing so much as exploring. Try not to attach anything more to it than that.

Then I would offer that your exploration of this comparison has reached a dead end. So long as it is not being imposed there is no comparison.

It is imposed..we are fighting to keep it from being imposed much more widely.

"A judge in Massachusetts ordered that a pregnant woman with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have an abortion against her will and be sterilized at the same time."
Massachusetts judge orders mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized - Andrea's Agenda by Andrea Johnson - MinotDailyNews.com | News, sports, business, jobs - Minot Daily News

Uh huh. Do people never read the stuff they use to support their position? The decision, which I agree was a bad decision, was over turned. The woman was not, in fact, required to have an abortion and the judge retired from the bench. Now, if the comparison you want to make were accurate then the decisions made by the Nazis would likewise have been overturned in the courts. Were they? In fact, if the comparison were at all accurate the courts would never have been involved at all. The hospital would just have performed the abortion without consulting anyone.

There is just no way to make this connection.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Netherlands have issued orders for the round up of all Jews for deportation tomorrow and are sending train loads of them to Luxembourg, Belgium and Switzerland as they all have legal euthanasia. In the US the round up of Jews in Montana, Oregon and Washington state will begin next Monday as euthanasia is also legal in those states. Brick from Georgia and Alabama has been ordered and the crematoriums will be built by the end of December.
Gypsies, homosexuals and handicapped people will be routed through Colorado for deportation to the camps in Oregon, Washington state and Montana because euthanasia is legal in those states.
Attempts to stop these terrible deportations today were shouted down by those that proclaimed that abortion is legal in America and that is why we have legal euthanasia and that has led to the rise of the Nazi party in America to deport these Jewish families. It all fell on deaf ears as the masses cheered onward the abortions and the euthanasia of all Jews, homosexuals and handicapped folks. Ramps were built in the Tetons for mass executions of the elderly pushing them off of cliffs in wheelchairs. Racial hygiene and compulsory sterilization was introduced as a counter measure by a competing group of Aryan Skin heads in Idaho White Aryans for Jesus Today Entering (WASTE) against abortion and euthanasia. WASTE is holding a rally tonight at Tony's 76 Rest and Shower Truck Stop on I-45 open to the public but remember: No Jews, ******* or Irish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, I tend to annoy both parties of a debate frequently, so no surprise here.

Anyway, I think you understand that I recognize the comparison and understand it's relevance. I don't trouble myself with standing on one side or the other of the "line in the sand" on this issue. I believe that unborn life deserves some level of protection under the law because it is a human life. My problem with extremists on this issue is that both lack a respect for human life in some way or another. Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life. People see the issue as a war, and in war people have to pick sides. I get it. It leaves little room for people like me who would prefer to simply recognize a problem and attempt to find a practical solution. On this particular matter, comparing Nazi ideologies and eugenics, I happen to agree with pro-lifers that the comparison is relevant, and to the chagrin of pro-choicers I'm sure. So be it. But in the process it seems I may be ruffling some pro-life feathers as well.

Well, with all due respect, the problem with proclaiming yourself "middle of the road, the only REALLY sensible people" is that you end up spending more time and energy trying to appear perfectly balanced between the two sides than you do actually dealing with the realities of the issue.

Case in point: "Pro-life hardliners seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs, often with little to no regard for the circumstances, while pro-choice hardliners seem determined to protect reproductive rights with little to no regard for ANY unborn life."

On what do you base this sentence, other than a fence-sitting need to appear to criticize both sides equally so that you appear "moderate"? In what way do pro-lifers "seem determined to protect all unborn life at all costs"? Be specific, and please make it an example that actually deals with pro-lifers generally, not some isolated whackjob who is condemned and shunned by everyone on both sides.

One upside to focusing on right and wrong, good and evil instead of "appearing moderate" as a main goal is that if you end up being wrong, at least it was in service of a cause that was worth something.

Good questions. I base the sentence on the fact that I'm talking about hardliners. So, it will be impossible for me not to talk about isolated whackjobs if I'm talking about hardliners, won't it? Additionally, why don't you ask me to do the same with pro-choicers? I would suspect that it's because you have no problem with my observations of pro-choicers.

No, "hardliner" and "isolated whackjob" are not the same thing, but it's very PC and nice to pay lip service to the idea that they are. Hardliners range from "abortion should just be illegal" to "abortion should be illegal except for rape, incest, and life of the mother". Isolated whackjobs end up shooting abortion doctors to "save the babies".

As it happens, I do agree with your choice of words about pro-abortion hardliners, but that isn't because I'm pro-life. It's because I can actually produce hard evidence that that very attitude is very common and widespread on that side of the aisle. Just go check the websites of people like NARAL Pro-Choice America and NOW. But however much your Humpty-Dumpty act requires you to believe it, that DOESN'T make the exact opposite true of the other side.

In any case, I can use Rep. Todd Akins as one example. His claim that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant illustrates this hardline posture to which I am referring. While he may not speak for all pro-lifers, it still illustrates an "all costs" ideology that will protect any and all unborn human life with little to no regard for the living. I've seen and heard similar sentiments echoed frequently.

So is dishonesty and intellectual laziness often a part of your attempt to hold yourself into the yellow line in the middle of the political road? Because Todd Akin didn't say that, nor would it reflect the posture you attributed to hardliners even if he had.

Akin said that pregnancy resulting from rape is "really rare", which is actually quite correct, and you can attribute it to any reason you like, from the trauma to the simple fact that women aren't actually fertile for most of any given month.

Whatever point you think it was that Akin was clumsily attempting to make about the rarity of pregnancies resulting from rape, it doesn't indicate "little to no regard for the circumstances" in his position on abortion law, which is the extremely common "exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother". Did you not know this about him before you opened your mouth about his "lack of regard", or do you consider this position to BE a "lack of regard"?

You are free to criticize my more moderate ways as wishy-washy, non-committal, cowardly, etc. I've heard it all. You're right, I do enjoy criticizing far lefties and far righties equally, and will continue to do so. I doesn't mean I don't recognize valid points by either when I see them.

I didn't say anything of the sort, but if makes you feel better to believe yourself attacked and beset and to attribute other people's words to me, knock yourself out.

What I said, and stand by, is that your primary focus is not finding the truth or standing up for what's right; it's balancing yourself on the fence so that you can feel superior to those who have chosen a side.

My main question for you would be why, despite me essentially agreeing with the primary comparison, do you find it so important to take me to task?

I cannot abide sloppy thinking, intellectual laziness, or dishonesty, and I will not simply ignore it because someone has stumbled over it and landed on a political position I agree with.