Dealing with the Abortion/Holocaust Comparison

[Quetzal]

Abortion is one of the few topics I tend to shy away from. Fact of the matter is that is tends to become too emotionally charged and we lose any kind of critical discussion. One of the things conservatives like to do is pull the Holocaust comparison card. Not too long after this comparison is made they will push the envelope further and infer that I am a supporter of genocide.

I have a very tough time dealing with this. Anytime this happens I ask (almost beg) for them to re-frame it in a way that does not disrespect the atrocity that occurred then. It is obvious that the participants who use this comparison have a drastic different opinion than I do when it comes to a fetus, I guess my question is how to deal with this statement/argument?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no highly organized and vitriolic State policy aimed at demonizing and eradicating the fetus as a class.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You can't - if people are so afraid of dissenting dialogue that they frame everything against the backdrop of the Nazis or the holocaust, there's nothing more to discuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is, however, a highly organized and vitriolic movement intent on demonizing and criminalizing am enormous number of women.

 

[Quetzal]

Am I being unreasonable? I have actually been banned from two forums (more conservative, obviously) for asking to re-frame their discussion outside of the holocaust.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Am I being unreasonable? I have actually been banned from two forums (more conservative, obviously) for asking to re-frame their discussion outside of the holocaust.

No. Those people are crazy and don't like having their stances questioned. Don't let it get under your skin.

 

[Quintessence]

Seriously?



That's one of the most moronic comparisons I have ever heard.

 

[SomeRandom]

I personally find such comparisons disgusting. Perhaps that is based on pure emotion on my part I freely cop to that. Even still I find it not similar enough to warrant such comparisons and it personally disgusts me. And I am only indirectly involved in with the holocaust like a lot of other people.

 

[Laika]

Am I being unreasonable? I have actually been banned from two forums (more conservative, obviously) for asking to re-frame their discussion outside of the holocaust.

No. you're not being unreasonable.

Here's a few suggestions. I don't know if they would work though.

The question is about the sanctity of human life. So the question is really about why life is sacred and what that entails. An important distinction here is that the King James Version of the Bible, the commandment reads "thou shall not kill", but in the Hebrew bible, it is "thou shall not murder". The latter version entials that killing can be justified, such as in relation to the death penalty, in warfare and being an intruder into their home. What this does is show that it isn't absolute and is open to interpretation and is therefore dependent on the justification, though this argument still accepts the authority of the bible/god as a source for moral judgement.

There is also the question as to why this should apply only to human life. Buddhist would argue that animal life is sacred, and that means it is immoral to eat meat. I've read on RF you could well argue that God is responsible for all the miscarriages and is therefore responsible for more abortions than the medical profession.

 

[Quetzal]

No. you're not being unreasonable.

Here's a few suggestions. I don't know if they would work though.

The question is about the sanctity of human life. So the question is really about why life is sacred and what that entails. An important distinction here is that the King James Version of the Bible, the commandment reads "thou shall not kill", but in the Hebrew bible, it is "thou shall not murder". The latter version entials that killing can be justified, such as in relation to the death penalty, in warfare and being an intruder into their home. What this does is show that it isn't absolute and is open to interpretation and is therefore dependent on the justification, though this argument still accepts the authority of the bible/god as a source for moral judgement.

There is also the question as to why this should apply only to human life. Buddhist would argue that animal life is sacred, and that means it is immoral to eat meat. I've read on RF you could well argue that God is responsible for all the miscarriages and is therefore responsible for more abortions than the medical profession.

The counter punch to this is that abortions are an action taken by man. That is, they claim since we are actively ending "life", we are murdering "babies". There is that disconnect, right? A miscarriage is an act of nature/God where an abortion is an act of man.

 

[Augustus]

I guess my question is how to deal with this statement/argument?

Invade Poland?

 

[Laika]

The counter punch to this is that abortions are an action taken by man. That is, they claim since we are actively ending "life", we are murdering "babies". There is that disconnect, right? A miscarriage is an act of nature/God where an abortion is an act of man.

Thinking off the top of my head for examples where god kills people on mass...

Exodus 11:5
Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Gensis 6:7 (noah's flood)
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

then there's hell and the book of revelations....

It is therefore only by virtue of submitting to god (who himself is a murderer) that this qualifies as moral. I'm not sure how to answer it, but should god have a monopoly on killing? you'd then be into the "problem of evil" territory because why would someone worship a god that breaks his own commandments and is therefore evil by his own standards.

 

[Nietzsche]

Abortion is one of the few topics I tend to shy away from. Fact of the matter is that is tends to become too emotionally charged and we lose any kind of critical discussion. One of the things conservatives like to do is pull the Holocaust comparison card. Not too long after this comparison is made they will push the envelope further and infer that I am a supporter of genocide.

I have a very tough time dealing with this. Anytime this happens I ask (almost beg) for them to re-frame it in a way that does not disrespect the atrocity that occurred then. It is obvious that the participants who use this comparison have a drastic different opinion than I do when it comes to a fetus, I guess my question is how to deal with this statement/argument?

Abortion is nothing like the Holocaust. The Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate entire groups of people for the crime of being from different backgrounds. There is no Dachau that pregnant women are sent to where they're forced to have abortions. Not to mention the Nazis were anti-abortion(well when it came to 'Aryans') as well. The "pro-life" movement has much more in common with the Third Reich(they viewed all Aryan life as inherently valuable in some cases more so than the mother, this includes rape-pregnancies so long as the rapist was of acceptable stock) than the pro-choice movement, though I would obviously hesitate to use that as an argument because it's stupid. But the "Abortion is Holocaust" argument is even more stupid than that, and anyone who seriously uses it should be sent to a camp themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

Abortion is one of the few topics I tend to shy away from. Fact of the matter is that is tends to become too emotionally charged and we lose any kind of critical discussion. One of the things conservatives like to do is pull the Holocaust comparison card. Not too long after this comparison is made they will push the envelope further and infer that I am a supporter of genocide.

I have a very tough time dealing with this. Anytime this happens I ask (almost beg) for them to re-frame it in a way that does not disrespect the atrocity that occurred then. It is obvious that the participants who use this comparison have a drastic different opinion than I do when it comes to a fetus, I guess my question is how to deal with this statement/argument?

Best thing, if you can, is to set aside your emotions. Folks will use whatever emotionally charged attack that can cause a reaction from you. You can't control how they are going to argue against your position. You can only control your reaction. If you let them emotionally control the argument then you've lost.

Me, I'm pro-life but I'm also anti-government control. So I'm also against the government telling folks what to do. With abortion, there is no real right and wrong, it's all emotion. It how you feel about protecting women's rights vs protect the rights of a potential life. So keeping your own emotions in check is difficult on this.

If they are going to use Hitler or Nazis, either turn their argument against them or consistently say their argument is non sequitur and insist there is no point in responding to it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abortion is one of the few topics I tend to shy away from. Fact of the matter is that is tends to become too emotionally charged and we lose any kind of critical discussion. One of the things conservatives like to do is pull the Holocaust comparison card. Not too long after this comparison is made they will push the envelope further and infer that I am a supporter of genocide.

I have a very tough time dealing with this. Anytime this happens I ask (almost beg) for them to re-frame it in a way that does not disrespect the atrocity that occurred then. It is obvious that the participants who use this comparison have a drastic different opinion than I do when it comes to a fetus, I guess my question is how to deal with this statement/argument?

In terms of techniques used in debate in order to refocus your point is to simply not play by their rules. They set up a scenario where they have inadequately linked you to Nazism. Point out why it is not the same thing.

There is no systematic or purposeful genocide of fetuses. There is no organization working for the destruction of any kind of people. There is however a medically viable right that women have in order to end a pregnancy that they do not want within certain time limits. We are allowing women to make decisions for themselves about how their bodies should be used.

Nazi's wanted to control their population. They did so by force. conservatives in this country want to micromanage sex and women's organs as if they were their own to dictate. We can clearly see which side is more like Nazi Germany.

 

[Quetzal]

Thank you for the replies, it makes me a feel less crazy about it.

 

[Augustus]

In terms of techniques used in debate in order to refocus your point is to simply not play by their rules. They set up a scenario where they have inadequately linked you to Nazism. Point out why it is not the same thing.

To not play by their rules, the best thing to do is to ridicule the statement. Once you deem it worthy of a response you've afforded the statement more legitimacy than it actually deserves.

If someone says "cheese comes from milk, so cows are made from cheese" you aren't going to go into an in depth explanation of the biological and chemical make up of the bovine species. Just laugh at them and go ad hominem. It's not a fallacy if they genuinely are an idiot.

Anyway, if you compare abortion to the holocaust you aren't going to 'see reason' based on a lucid and erudite argument, save yourself the hassle and say what you are thinking which is that they are a stupid **** [insert appropriate noun depending on how polite you are].

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To not play by their rules, the best thing to do is to ridicule the statement. Once you deem it worthy of a response you've afforded the statement more legitimacy than it actually deserves.

If someone says "cheese comes from milk, so cows are made from cheese" you aren't going to go into an in depth explanation of the biological and chemical make up of the bovine species. Just laugh at them and go ad hominem. It's not a fallacy if they genuinely are an idiot.

Anyway, if you compare abortion to the holocaust you aren't going to 'see reason' based on a lucid and erudite argument, save yourself the hassle and say what you are thinking which is that they are a stupid **** [insert appropriate noun depending on how polite you are].

Ridicule but clearly explain why they are wrong with extra ridicule within the statement seems to work best. Simply saying "lol ur wrong" doesn't go anywhere. Normally these kind of conversations don't go anywhere anyway but at least there some slight chance it might if you reduce their argument to the atomic level.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The ironic thing is that people who tend to make such comparisons also tend to be anti-Semitic and don't really give a crap about jewish lives either.

 

[columbus]

Fact of the matter is that is tends to become too emotionally charged and we lose any kind of critical discussion. One of the things conservatives like to do is pull the Holocaust comparison card.

There is a comparable and similarly frustrating tactic from pro abortion people. It is the slavery card.
Often enough, any advocacy for restrictions or consequences attached to fertile sex or early term abortion is labelled the enslavement of women. It's compared to reducing them to brood mares or incubators.
I definitely feel your pain.
Tom