Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cisden.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!john
From: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <420@cisden.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 16:03:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cisden.420
Posted: Fri Jan 17 16:03:15 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 21:48:29 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <380@cisden.UUCP> <387@cisden.UUCP> <210@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Distribution: na
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 84
Keywords: Nazis

It seems a little clarification is needed into why I referred to Nazis
in recent postings.

	1.  I did not say (and certainly did not mean to imply) that
	  pro-choice people have the same moral qualities as Nazis.  

	2.  I did not refer to Nazis as some sort of emotional trick,
	  or as part of an _argumentum_ad_hominem_.

The main reason for referring to Nazis in a rational discussion of abortion
is this, that they believed that killing innocent people in some instances
was morally okay, but that all civilized people (and everyone in this
discussion) agree that they were murderers, i.e. that their morality was
*wrong*.  (I'll cheerfully use some other example if you suggest a similar
one.)  This example is potentially illuminating for two reasons:

	1.  It might possibly give pro-choice folks some insight into
	  us their opposition to realize that we *really believe* that
	  what they advocate and practice is morally indistinguishable
	  from what the Nazis advocated and practiced.  (The people
	  involved are certainly distinguishable -- don't say I
	  called you a Nazi!)  We're not just out to interfere with
	  other people, or foist religion on the unwilling, or any
	  such thing.  We want to stop people killing other people.
	  Whether you agree or not is one thing, but you'll understand
	  us a lot better if you know and can feel a little of why
	  we're opposed to you.

	2.  Many (not all) of the arguments that are used in favour of
	  abortion have logical flaws in them.  (This is of course true
	  of many arguments on our side, too.)  Often these logical
	  flaws can be exposed by showing that the same line of logic
	  can be used to conclude that the Nazis' killing of Jews was
	  morally licit.  If this can be done (and it often can) it
	  shows *not* that abortion is always wrong, but that the
	  particular pro-abortion argument being paralleled was
	  illogical.  (This kind of proof is called _reductio_ad_
	  absurdum_.)  And the Nazis are a particularly handy group to
	  use for this purpose not because of any emotions involved,
	  but simply because the immorality of their doctrine is one of
	  the few things we can all agree on without much discussion.


So in article <210@aero.ARPA> zeus@aero.UUCP (Dave Suess) has apparently
misunderstood what I was getting at.  He writes, at first quoting me:

>>And again, so is murder a moral issue.  If some Nazi actually thinks it's
>>okay to go around shooting Jews, I'm not going to argue that he should
>>be allowed to because, after all, you can't force morality on people
>>who don't want it.  I don't care whether the Nazi *wants* to be subject
>>to my morality -- I'm going to do the best I can to impose it on him and
>>thereby protect his victims.  
>
>Every year, I ask that the Nazis be left out of arguments (since it lends
>an air of emotionalism based on what is often a side issue).  Here, even
>though the subject is murder (in a general sense), there is an analogy where
>1) pro-choice-for-abortion equates with "Nazi", and 2) foetus equates with
>"Jew".  Murder in general is quite different than a racist variant, and
>using Nazis and Jews would seem, as usual, inappropriate.  Nobody mentioned 
>aborting just Jewish foetuses, after all.

What I wrote wasn't meant to be emotional.  It's a _reductio_ad_absurdum_
using precisely the same logic as the argument it refutes, but reaching a
conclusion we all agree is false.

>There is a place for Nazis-Jews references here, but the context should be
>ideologies of Nazis and Jews as they pertain to abortion.  And recall that
>the Nazis were very much anti-abortion (for German-Aryans), expressing the
>opinion that, for the good of the state, women should be making more and
>more German-Aryans (more soldiers, and more soldier-mothers, presumably).
>
>[See how easy it is?  My comments equate anti-abortion with "Nazi" now,
>when really I should have left it at the "good of society" argument, without
>painting it with the emotion of "Nazis!"  Hence, my above paragraph is
>specious, and should never be cited as an argument on these issues.]

Yes, I agree.  Your argument is an _argumentum_ad_hominem_, saying (falsely,
by the way) that the Nazis were anti-abortion, and implying a connection
with today's anti-abortion forces.  As you point out, this is illogical,
specious even.  But it's not what I did.
-- 
				Peace and Good!,
				      Fr. John Woolley
"Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas