Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watnot.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!pdobeda From: pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: References to the Holocaust Message-ID: <11528@watnot.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 13:10:34 EST Article-I.D.: watnot.11528 Posted: Mon Feb 24 13:10:34 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 03:14:59 EST References: <1542@videovax.UUCP> <895@felix.UUCP> Reply-To: pdobeda@watnot.UUCP () Distribution: na Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 91 Summary: In article <895@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >I cannot fathom why people in this newsgroup continually equate the abortion >issue with euthanasia, the holocaust, etc. The abortion issue is not being equated with euthanasia, nor the holocaust. Such are merely being referenced in an attempt to point out similar situations and similar justifications. > >The basic difference in position between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" >factions as I have observed them on the net is not whether murder is right >or wrong, but rather the question, "is abortion murder?" There are many differing viewpoints which make a person consider him or herself "Pro-Choice". They include: - Is an unborn infant a person, such as myself? - Is there such a thing as a life worth living? (Or, more importantly, is the life of the fetus worth living?) - Does a mother have the right to do anything she wants with her body? With somebody else's body while it's in her body? (Again, is it really someone else??) Does a mother have the right to do anything she wants to at all, irrespective of how it affects others? (Again, what if it is decided (by me) that those others aren't really people??) Indeed, the question of "is abortion murder" is primary, but it has roots in the question of what constitutes murder, and when murder may be permissible. It is a widely held view that abortion is murder, but some still feel that this murder is a fine and humanitarian thing. Again, the parallelism to the Holocaust and to euthanasia is clear--many feel that mercy-killing is humanitarian, and the Nazis in charge of rounding up the Jews, as fine people as they were still felt that they were doing a humanitarian act. > >Any comparisons to mercy killing, the Crusades, Son of Sam, and other acts >involving killing are not connected in any way to this issue. > >And then there's the response, "If abortion is legal, then what's to stop >people from killing the old and infirm, etc., ad nauseum. This is like >saying, "If I can drive a car, what's to stop me from eating cauliflower." >This is a non-sequiter. As I said before, it boils down to your reasons for allowing the abortions to take place. Most of the same arguments are also used to justify mercy-killing. The Crudades were for different reasons altogether, and are a blotch in history. Son of Sam was a crazed killer, yet I could say that he relieved many from a life of suffering on this overcrowded planet, and did society a favour. > >It reminds me of the main argument against marijuana, "That it leads to >the use of stronger drugs." This may or may not be fact, but the logic >is faulty. Anything MAY lead to anything! > >Note: I do not condone drug use. I am trying to make a point. The statement that marijuana leads to the use of stronger drugs is based on a drug user becoming bored with the high which marijuana provides him, and searching for something better, the same way in which life became to dull for him in the first place and he moved on to become a druggie. The logic is faulty only if you ignore all that is implicit. Again, there is a great similarity of thought and of justificative argumentation between many "Pro-Choice" people and those supporting euthanasia, or the Nazis in charge of the holocaust. > >If a standpoint is defensible on its own grounds, using rational arguments >and documented facts, why oh why must these tangential issues be raised, >and emotionally loaded logic used? e.g. "Nazis were bad, Nazis did abortions, >therefore abortions are bad." This is clearly ridiculous, easily illustrated >since by the same logic, "All abortionists are Nazis" is also true. Give me grounds that defend abortion, using rational arguments and documented facts, and I'll give you thousands of replies providing grounds that defend not having abortion generally available, using rational arguments and documented facts. > >Present your evidence. Preserve the memory of the Holocaust. >But please please please please PLEASE do not equate things that are not equal. > > >Dave "just the facts, Ma'am" Richards The facts are that one can rationalize any given action, if one only tries. (Try it--see if you can rationalize, say, a mafia killing, or prostitution, or keeping the blacks suppressed in South Africa. Put yourself in the other person's shoes, and any atrocity doesn't seem nearly as bad.) Paul D. Obeda