Instigator / Pro
4
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#1667

Abortion should be legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
1

After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

SkepticalOne
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description

PGA (Peter) and I will take on the abortion debate. Neither of us will be arguing an absolute position and understand there must be room for nuance. Peter allows abortion when the mother's life is threatened by pregnancy. I accept Roe V Wade has laid out reasonable limits on abortion. I anticipate our main point of contention will be, not in the fringe, but, where abortion is most common. Ie. Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. I will argue this should be legal, and Peter will argue against it. Each debater will have their own burden to meet.

There will be no new arguments in the final round - only rebuttal and closing.

-->
@whiteflame

Look, I understand how tasteless and hurtful this topic is to you but I don't want it dismissed as rhetoric or absurdity on the mere charge that there is no comparison or connection. So when you voice your opinion with your OP in the Comments section I do not think you are giving it the scrutiny it deserves because believe it or not, you have a bias and you are Jewish. Thus the hurt it incites to discuss such a topic is evident. But it is important to realize what is being done to the unborn. Have the unborn been dehumanized and treated as less than what they are? I am willing to make that argument to bring attention to the subject of abortion and the injustice to the unborn, a subject that is seldom mentioned in comparing because the charge is immediately laid of argumentum ad Hitlerum (argument to Hitler) to invalidate the argument, as Wikipedia points out.

"The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent."

(Funnily enough, that is what I have been accused of here, derailing the argument)

"Since its inception, the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy has also inspired a counter-fallacy, whereby it has been cited not to point out a logical fallacy in an argument but instead to deflect valid allegations of acting with similar intent or beliefs to Nazism, allegations of collaboration with the Holocaust, or to support statements of Holocaust denial, by alleging that critics are exaggerating their allegations, irrespective of the actual specifics of the allegations or the evidence supporting them. In this counter-fallacy, any mention of historical events associated with the Nazis is used as a basis to dismiss the other fundamentals of the argument as 'reductio ad Hitlerum', even where there is a direct association."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I feel that in this discussion, initiated by my objection to Ragnar's use of it in his vote, and your objection as well to my citing Hilter or the Nazis, or even greater, your claim that I am calling Pro-choicers little Hitler's which I think is absurd, I would remind you if I have used such arguments of Reductio Ad Absurdum in my debates or forum posts I point out that Socrates used arguments of absurdity to great effect, so did Jesus, so they are not always a bad thing.

So, yes, I take a great risk in how it is perceived and I am prepared to suffer negative votes to bring the issue out in the public further by what you call, "inciting bias" by doing so. Perhaps a debate on such a narrow topic as dehumanizing language and how it is used in abortion and with the Nazis will expand on the topic further. Since you had not finished reading the debate but initiated the comment, did the red flag come up as soon as you saw I had taken the time to show how language and law created negative effects for many groups of people who were marginalized, but especially the Jews? And do you really believe that pro-choicers do not use much of the same kind of language of devaluation or marginalizing and degrading the Nazis did to present a negative view of the unborn, of pro-life and the pro-life position, for as much as I try to see the unborn upheld as a human being and with a right to life, the most fundamental of all rights, I seldom see that consideration taking into consideration by pro-choicers? They usually advocate for and side exclusively with the woman's rights or her freedoms. What about the rights and freedoms of this other class of human beings - the unborn? They do not seem to count.

-->
@Barney

YOU: "You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates."

Would you be willing to have such a debate?

-->
@Barney

Thanks

-->
@skittlez09

>> "hey im new to this site and was just wondering how voting works?"

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

In short, you need to take part in a couple debates in order to vote (or post a lot on the forums to indicate investment in the greater community, which is fastest to achieve by playing Mafia).

Voting here isn't about agreement with one side, but about weighting the performances (it need to cover every nuance, but it should list at least a couple highlights). As an example, there's a few users whom I can't stand whom have nonetheless won votes from me.

-->
@PGA2.0

You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates.

-->
@PGA2.0

Look, we can keep going back and forth on the validity of the comparison for days (and, to be clear, I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison), but that doesn't alter what I said in my OP or what I've continued saying all along. Again, even if I assume that the comparison between being pro-choice and being a Nazi is apt, there is no doubt that it also inflames people who are pro-choice to make the comparison. Saying that it's still accurate to make the comparison doesn't change the fact that people are automatically either turned away from discussing it with you by the tension it brings, or become so focused on the comparison that the substance of your argument effectively doesn't matter after reading it. And I'm telling you that this is working against your interest of educating and bringing attention to what's happening because the only people who are going to care about the substance of your argument are people who already agree with you. You're not educating by inciting the opposition to engage with this comparison rather than engage with the substance of the moral issue that you're trying to argue is most important.

It seems like your goal in this comment thread is to show that you are right, yet I've spent scant little time in this discussion challenging your basic claim. Contrary to your supposition, I'm not assuming I'm correct because I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not arguing that pro-choice is moral - seriously, read back through any of my comments. The only thing I'm arguing is that pro-choice people see the words "you're basically Hitler" and that has a strong negative effect on their willingness to read your other words. Much as you treat my OP as though it's some kind of treatise denouncing your argument as invalid, the only goal of posting it was to point out that you're going to have a very hard time connecting with any pro-choice audience. Maybe you don't care about connecting with that audience because you feel they're already aligned against you, but then I really just have to wonder whom it is you are trying to educate. Who's benefiting from reading these debates? Are you just trying to give pro-life people more fodder to use in their arguments, or are you really trying to engage with a group of people who you feel have it wrong? If it's the latter, then it is my suggestion that you change your tactics. You can choose to take that advice or leave it, but it's coming from someone who is trying his best to look at your points objectively and also knows how he and other pro-choice people perceive being effectively called a Nazi for their views. Your last line, in particular, is really odd to me. You want to know who and what influences pro-choice people? Then I'd suggest you do not start the conversation by equating their views with people who started and ran the Holocaust. That's not going to facilitate your or their understanding. That's going to tell them, like it tells me, that you care more about casting judgement on them than you do engaging with their views.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, take this or leave it. It's your choice whether or not you care about how people reading this perceive you and your arguments. Personally, I care a lot about how people read my arguments because I want them to read them fully. I want them to engage with the entirety of my points. If that's what you want, I can tell you straight up, this isn't helping.

-->
@whiteflame

You also say, likening abortion to the Nazis and what they did to human beings "is clearly meant to inflame emotionally." It does, yes, but the aim or "goal" is to educate and bring attention to what is happening. What has happened throughout human history when a group is singled out by this kind of negative language should be noted. And I am well aware that you "strongly disagree with it personally."

And,

"if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice,"

It is not the point but whether such devaluing and demonizing language is actually and factually used in discriminating and dehumanizing a particular group of human beings. Also, the same can be applied to you. You accuse me, assuming it is you who are correct.

You say,

"Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion."

The point is that human beings, yes, human beings, are being killed. That is a fact. Is that killing justified, and what spurs such killing? Usually, it is the unwantedness of these unborn human beings and the legal justification to do so made possible by the language we use to describe them. So, are these laws just? Is it just to kill innocent human beings simply because you or someone else says the moral justification for doing so is because they are not liked, or they are not wanted?

Ideas and their consequences shape nations, and that is why I never forgot what someone once said to me; that is, if you want to find out about someone, find out who and what influences them.

-->
@whiteflame

As for your vote, let me give you my opinion. I already had a good sense of where you were going with it in your OP. To me, that was the prep work to paint a particular portrait, and you come across to most as sober and fair-minded, and generally, that is the case. Thus, your opinion will set the stage for others. I also knew that the chance of winning a pro-choicer, which seems to me is the position held by the majority on debate forums, and possibly the American culture, is an arduous task. But hopefully, some will be aware of what language and laws can do and will think about such things in the future.

When you say,

"The goal of the comparison (between the Nazis and the unborn) isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities."

The goal is to show how language, then laws are used to paint a negative picture of and how they do demonize groups of people from fairness and justice by maligning them. Has that been done with the Jews in Nazi Germany, and has that been done with the unborn by abortion advocates? Did Hitler call the Jews parasites? I already quoted from Mein Kampf where he did. Do you deny he did this? Do pro-choicers label and call the unborn human using the same kinds of inflammatory and degrading language? If so, the comparison sticks. Words are being used to relegate the unborn to the garbage heap and cheapen its worth to society.

https://www.thenewscommenter.com/news/please-let-this-pro-choice-protest-sign-calling-the-unborn-parasites-be-a-photoshop/1146399

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rtlofneo/pages/192/attachments/original/1425400981/Unborn_a_Parasite_12-6-13a.pdf?1425400981

https://randalrauser.com/2016/06/fetus-as-parasite-a-disturbing-trend-in-pro-choice-rhetoric/

Carl Sagan and his wife said in Parade Magazine, April 6, 1990, p.6, speaking of the unborn that it "is a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus." - Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, by William Brennan, p.110.

Calling a human being a parasite is a way of providing a negative repulsive image of that person or human being, something that should not be wanted. It conjures up pictures of an unwanted INTRUDER, the same wording used in a debate on abortion at DebateArt.

-->
@whiteflame

Blackmun: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." [p. 160]

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/supreme-courts-response-to-the-question-when-does-life-begin.cfm

Do we not know when a human being begins to exist? "Need not resolve?" Why would you not resolve this difficult question before advocating for taking its life? If a small kid came to you and said, "Can I kill it?" before you said yes would you not ask what "it" referenced?

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth."
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/rvw/rvw09.htm

All these statements paint a negative picture of the worth and humanity of the unborn. They are not based on facts or reason.1) Justice should be based on fair-play/equality, not discrimination of the innocent. We know the unborn are treated differently from other human beings. 2) We know a new human life starts at conception.

Blackmun: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument." [p. 156]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-in-1973-knew-personhood-could-kill-roe-v-wade

If personhood is established his case collapses, yet he could not scientifically establish it was not a person, yet the idea was pushed into law that it did not deserve the same rights under the law. Surely, when unsure the benefit of the doubt should go to the unborn?

So with these examples, you see how law and language change the way the unborn is viewed.

-->
@whiteflame

Both have benefits and problems, but a debate is more focused on the topic at hand and deals with only one person in the bulk of the arguments. The difficulties encountered in both by my arguments are that the majority of the culture is mostly of pro-choice bias. That stereotype is used to address those talking points. As soon as Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned as a comparison of what was done with language or law, the immediate response is the claim of Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Discussing the vote was in response to Ragnar's comment which I thought set the stage for how others would most definitely be influenced because he set the tone with these words,

"DOESN'T seem to FAVOUR CON IN ANY AREA, and TO VOTE HIM would CALL FOR likewise VOTING AGAINST CANCER AND STD TREATMENTS."

The analogy was not appropriate, in my opinion. Then your OP brought up the issue further, and in your words, without even having fully read the debate because of your dislike of comparing abortion language, law or practice in any way to Naziism. I could have used numerous other examples such as how negative language was used against women to deny them voting rights as men in the USA (i.e., the vote). Many other slants against them were held by the societies of yesteryear and even in some cultures today. I could have given you examples of Apartheid, that I experienced while living or vacationing in South Africa, or how colonialism which I also experienced exploited particular groups of society wherever it was found by language and in action. But with sheer numbers, the holocaust of abortion is most comparable to the Nazi Holocaust. Thus, I wanted to focus on what language and laws can do to sway a nation or nations against a particular group if the words are negative towards that group. Europe had a negative attitude towards the Jews long before Hitler came along (which was wrong thinking since we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Hitler escalated the language of discrimination and dehumanization with his hatred. Mein Kampf was full of such hatred. I wanted to highlight how abortion advocates do the same thing with wording and laws. They used both of these tools to change the way a culture viewed abortion. Blackmun did not establish scientifically that the unborn was not a person or not fully human yet Roe V wade set the table for justifying that it was okay to kill the unborn if the woman did not want it. The "not a person or fully human" legislated into law his negative view.

hey im new to this site and was just wondering how voting works?

-->
@PGA2.0

It appears that what you're coming down on is that the forums are ineffective, but so are the debates, because you're encountering the same problems. This, what we're engaging in right now, is derailing. Discussing the validity of a vote or view on a given type of argument, rather than discussing the issue of abortion straight up, is derailing. I would say that this debate was also derailed since it became more about the reasons why you or your opponent won than the content of your arguments, so even before the focus was placed on the voting, you had this problem. So, if the forums and the debates have failed to bring about the kind of discussion you're looking for, I'm not sure why you're choosing to engage in either one.

I made clear that I have a problem with a particular point you're making. I also made clear (several times) that that would not prevent me from voting for you should the remainder of your arguments be successful or should you somehow explain why this point would factor without a meaningful response from your opponent. If you want to believe that I'm already so biased that there's no chance of my voting for you based on a single point about your comparisons of pro-choice mentalities to Naziism, that honestly just concerns me because it makes it sound like that argument is integral to your case. If it is, then yes, you're likely to encounter expansions on what I've said here in my vote and it's likely to play a big role in my decision. I would hope (and from what we've discussed before, I expect) to see something a little more thought out and interesting than this.

I think you're getting the wrong impression from my and Ragnar's statements regarding these comparisons. It's not just a matter of whether the comparison is to Nazis, though that's the low-hanging genocidal fruit and certainly makes it stand out more. There's a reason why this fallacy that Ragnar mentioned exists, and it goes beyond simple comparison to Nazis. The goal of the comparison isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities. Admittedly, the goal of any debate is to show that the other side is wrong, but this is clearly meant to inflame emotionally. You might believe wholeheartedly that the two are equivalent, or at least nearly so. I understand that, even if I very strongly disagree with it personally. I'm telling you, though, that using this kind of rhetoric in a debate isn't going to bring people to your side, nor is it going to make them consider your side more. It's an inherently polarizing comparison, and the only people who will read and consider it are those who already agree. You can call it true from your perspective all you want, but that doesn't change how it functions with your audience.

Look, if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice. You can assume all you want that it's pro-choice language that's causing the most harm, though I have disagreements on that as well. What concerns me with your points, and what I'm clearly having a hard time getting across, is that your language does nothing more than entrench the perceived divides between pro-life and pro-choice views. If every pro-choice individual is inherently Nazi-esque, then there's no point considering their argument rationally from your perspective, and since they think their perspective is moral, being told that they're basically all Hitler turns them off to any engagement with you. If you really want to have a rational discussion, starting with "yeah, but you're basically Hitler" doesn't do much to get the ball rolling. It's really good if you want to get people upset, but that's about it.

Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion. I don't know who those "gatekeepers" are, but I ascribe to my own views on the matter, and I know many others who feel differently as well. Yet your argument places us in the same camp as anyone who holds a pro-choice view, despite not using the language you find so odious. Another example of your attempts to stop rather than start conversation on this issue.

-->
@PGA2.0

It doesn't seem to me like you'd like to engage on language and how we use it to designate the unborn, since you already seem quite decided on that issue and view anyone who wobbles or falls on a different perspective as reprehensible for their views. I think the question that you posed two posts earlier, "should abortion be legal?", is about far more than a moral issue, and my views on it largely fall off the moral spectrum entirely. I think there are numerous problems with making abortion illegal, and they're mostly practical. That being said, the moral debate is an interesting one, and it would be a lot easier to have a substantive, detailed examination of that topic if the comparison to Nazis didn't make it all the more polarizing.

-->
@whiteflame

Sorry, it should have been "lived in South Africa."

Also, it should be "chances of persuasion" instead of changes.

-->
@whiteflame

I find the forums ineffective in communicating on such issues. First, the response to an initiated thread takes lots of work when you get bombarded with multiple posts at one time. Second, the thread usually gets derailed. Third, I have done a lot of thinking on this particular topic, and yes, like you, I don't have all the answers, but who does. Fourth, I believe my position is reasonable. Fifth, as I said before, I disagree with Ragnar in his assessment yet realize he is free to his opinion, just like I am. I pointed out my points of contention. Sixth, your original post already seemed predetermined to me.
a) You are "not a big fan of the Hitler comparison."
b) "[A]ssuming that it's an apt comparison, [you] would still find fault with it." Thus, as I said, you have a particular bias.
c) "if [my] goal is to earn votes for [my] side from those who are pro-choice, then [I'm] not doing [myself] any favors," in your opinion.
d) "Admittedly, [you've only read part of this debate." "[You] don't think the comparison is apt," so your mind is already thinking along those lines.
e) "[You are] both pro-choice and a Jew, so [you] feel it strongly on both fronts."

Not only this, on a forum that is largely secular and largely pro-choice, my changes of persuasion were slim from the start. The same goes for when I discuss Christianity with an atheist.

Yes, I am talking about the effects of negative language and what it does to our thinking. And what better example than what the barbary of the Nazis did to highlight what is being done through language and law to the unborn, granting you consider them human beings, and how can you not? Yes, I could have chosen other examples of societies using language and laws to discriminate against groups of people since I live in South Africa and witnessed what was done there, but on the scale of atrocities, the Holocaust is the example that comes closest in sheer numbers to what has been done to the unborn. Besides language, I'm also talking about justice and what that means. No matter how you frame it I do not understand how someone can believe in equality for all human beings then single out a particular group and treat them unjustly. As I said in the debate, justice is only just if it applies equally to all. The whole topic should abortion be of legal revolves around justice.

So, yes, you may think it ironic, what negative language can do to a particular group but pro-lifers are not the ones advocating for the killing of the unborn human being.

Regarding your last point, point four, I realize you do not appreciate it that I point out the flaws in such a view, but I could show you examples after examples of these very debates on abortion where the unborn are made to be lesser than they are through language. They are painted as less valuable human beings if they are even considered human beings. I could also go to the threads and show you pro-choice language that call the unborn all kinds of degrading and highly charged names like a parasite, cancer, an intruder, a group of cells, subhuman, not as human, and so on. I believe that is because our culture promotes such ideas of the unborn. As the gatekeepers of society go, so quite likely goes the main talking points and thinking of society, IMO.

-->
@PGA2.0

First off, I don't agree that your position or your combative style necessarily preclude you from doing well in a debate on this subject. It's a difficult subject, it incites a lot of strong feelings, and people expect those debating these topics to be combative. You can be both combative and persuasive.

Second, if your goal is to drive the conversation, I'd suggest shifting to the forums. Engaging in large, researched debates like this invite people to pick a winner rather than contribute to the discussion and forward or challenge issues like those you're discussing. Maybe it's just because you don't think you're getting much reach working the forums, but this kind of debate is really only helping you find one person to have these conversations with, and it becomes more about winning the debate than it does about furthering the discussion.

Third, it seems pretty ironic to me that you're talking about the effects of language on perceptions of groups when your own language is doing exactly that in this context. Efforts to characterize the other side as "Hitler-like" inherently shut down discussions like the one you're trying to have, that's part of the reason these comparisons are problematic. Even when someone is willing to engage with you, it either starts from a place of greater antagonism, or it becomes a discussion of the methods you're using like this, rather than a discussion of language surrounding the lives of the unborn.

Fourth, I'm really not appreciating that you're speaking about those who are pro-choice as being relatively homogeneous in their views. I say "their" when I am pro-choice myself, and it has never been my goal to "cloak or disguise" the identity of the unborn. That being said, I have used the words "potential person" to describe them, and I feel that that position is entirely appropriate because it acknowledges uncertainty in our perception of the unborn rather than uncertainty of what they physically are. For that matter, I think questioning the point at which a life becomes unique, individual, or human is reasonable. Again, we've had this discussion at great length. I'm more than willing to concede that there are flaws in some of the arguments proposed by people who are pro-choice. The same is true of those who are pro-life. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice side has no reasonable points to make when it comes to issues like this, and if you want to engage with me and other pro-choice people on issues like this to better understand the logic we're employing, a good place to start is by acknowledging that we don't have to compare these positions to those espoused by the Nazis in order to find fault in them.

-->
@whiteflame

Sorry, should be cloak, not clocks.

-->
@whiteflame

I have already realized, very likely, I don't stand a chance with the vote because of the culture I operate in. I further realize my combative style in challenging the status quo will not win many over. My hopes and purpose are to perhaps drive the conversation deeper along the lines of how words in societies can have a very negative effect on our perceptions of groups of people to the point where laws are enacted and affected by such use of language to the detriment and exclusion of groups. Should abortion be legal? That is a moral issue that revolves around what the unborn is. Have you ever noticed how the pro-choice position clocks or disguises what we are speaking of, a human being? To argue it is not a human being or not as human as more developed human beings (more like a group of cells, or biological blob, or potential life, or potential human, instead of its own unique individual entity or organism, directing its own growth) is not to treat it with the same equality and value as other human beings.

-->
@PGA2.0

I'm not calling the argument fallacious. Comparisons to the Nazis are, occasionally, warranted. Nor am I arguing that you have a negative stance towards Jews. My concern is its usage in this instance and how it can be perceived. This isn't just about inherent bias, though when you're looking to get votes on a debate, that is something you have to concern yourself with. Rather, this is about inciting bias through your use of this comparison, which I think you are doing. I've seen and voted for several good pro-life arguments, and while I recognize that there are many pro-choice people who would vote against those people on principle alone, I think what leads me and others who are pro-choice to vote for these debaters is largely that they make a persuasive point that doesn't compare their deeply held beliefs to those held by the Nazis. Again, whether this is an apt comparison based on the language used by the pro-choice movement vs. Hitler is really irrelevant to the point I'm making now. It can be accurate to say this and still put you in a worse position to do so.

-->
@whiteflame

Well, Whiteflame, I think people evoke and use the Hitler fallacy to squash any discussion on the comparisons on the two groups via language and laws. As I said, I think semantics are used to put a negative slant of what the unborn is, just like Hitler did with the Jew, the gypsy, and many other groups of human beings. Furthermore, I understand that everyone holds a bias to some degree and that the majority of people on DebateArt are not Christian or pro-life. I also think that what Hitler did was a sin against humanity and I hold nothing against you as a Jew. In fact, I admire and think highly of Jews, generally speaking., and I'm proud to say my Messiah was/is a Jew, and as a Christian, I identify the church as the New Israel of God, expressed in the parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

-->
@Barney
@PGA2.0

I will post a vote on this when I get the opportunity (there's a lot of time to do that, and comparatively little time for me to finish writing my dissertation), but I did want to quickly weigh in on the main issue being discussed.

We have discussed this at length previously, PGA2.0, and I've made clear to you that I'm not a big fan of the Hitler comparison. If we start by assuming that it's an apt comparison, I would still find fault with it, as it's basically calling out anyone who supports abortion as Nazi-esque. I know that the issue of abortion as a whole is incredibly polarizing, but if your goal is to earn votes for your side from those who are pro-choice, then you're not doing yourself any favors using this comparison. It may be unintentional, but it makes your argument sound like a rather strong indictment of being pro-choice rather than an attack on the mentalities used to justify it, even if it is done directly in reference to those mentalities. It's hard to get away from making a comparison like this feel personal because there are so many traits that get dragged along with the Nazi label and all of them are moral indictments.

To be clear, I don't think the comparison is apt, and I don't think you're pigeon-holed into using it, either. I can discuss that in more detail either with you personally or via my vote, but I have a lot of problems with the equivocation. Admittedly, I've only read part of this debate and you could have justified it better than when we discussed it before, but it's unlikely that you've managed to make the comparison compelling enough for me to agree with you. Perhaps that's my own bias leaking in (I am both pro-choice and a Jew, so I feel it strongly on both fronts), but I'm trying to just take a step back and analyze this on a purely logical basis, and I'm seeing numerous flaws even in the short paragraph justification you're providing here. We can discuss that much here in the comments, though I'd rather not provide specific analysis here before I've voted.

All this being said, I have not yet read through the whole debate and therefore have not decided whom I would vote for. These are just my two cents about the usage of a specific argument without examining the specific points made under it.

-->
@Barney

Not something you are aware of, perhaps.

You charge me with Reductio ad Hitlerum, but if a comparison is true, or similar, what makes it fallacious? I'm glad we are having this discussion. I think that label is thrown around many times to detract from such discussions as a mere ploy to win arguments to those who are gullible.

Because I chose the Nazis as an example I got pigeon-holed into this fallacy. I could have chosen one of the other groups I mentioned in my last post but I think the Nazi example is most fitting because of the horror of what was done. The human Holocaust, language and laws are similar in both examples. I gave sufficient evidence to prove the terminology was similar in both the way the Nazis devalued the Jews and how abortion advocates devalue the unborn. The language used by the Nazis and abortionists compared both groups of victims to diseases and of lesser nature. Both groups victimized are further dehumanized and depersonalized. The German Nazi or the pro-choicer forms a picture of a disease or something less than human. It marginalizes a human being so it becomes easier to do things that should not be done to one of these humans in removing them. The fact is that both the Nazi and abortionists use language like disease, cancer, parasite, or garbage to disparage both groups.

I chose this aspect of comparison because this aspect of the debate on abortion is often the one that is most neglected or pushed to the side and ignored. Words paint a picture that is used to either present a positive or negative image of something and when negative words are used regarding human beings the unthinkable becomes the norm, something not worthy of life.

I could give you numerous examples of this disparaging language where the Jew and the unborn are compared to diseases, cancers, pestilence, an animal metaphor, a non-person, non-human, sub-human, parasite, waste product, non-entity, potential life, potential human, etc.

In Hitler's Mein Kampf as a lone example, he spoke of the Jew as "a foreign virus," "germ carriers," filth," "a pestilence," "moral pestilence," "infection," "worse than the Black Plague," "the worst kind of germ carriers in poisoning human souls," "unclean products in public cultural life," (p. 56) "a foreign people," (p. 57) "evil," "alien race," "leading our people astray," (p. 59) "a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed," "a real scourge," (p.242) "the Jewish menace," "The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states," "monsters," "our general disease," "blindly ignored the virus," "The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations," "syphilis," spreading infection throughout the world.

Read pages 55-60 (Ch. 2) as a small sample of his rant and demonizing of the Jew.
https://mk.christogenea.org/_files/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20english%20translation%20unexpurgated%201939.pdf
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html

Do you think the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger, fairs much better in her portrayals of the unwanted unborn and with many other topics of similarity with Hitler, such as euthanasia or separating people and groups from society?

I could present the same kind of language used to demonize the unborn by abortionists and pro-choicers to lessen its humanity. Whenever such negative language is used it works its way into how a group is viewed to the point where laws are passed to limits these groups freedoms and liberties to the point where their lives are threatened and taken (i.e., Roe V Wade changed a law that had stood since the 1800s). One law set a precedent permitting the killing of a group of human beings for almost any reason based on the will of the woman as to whether she wanted the unborn or not.

-->
@PGA2.0

>> "suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion."
Not how I vote. Further, if anyone casts a vote merely piggybacking on mine (or any other) rather than forming their own opinions, they'll be deleted (if reported).

>> "Am I right?"
You are wrong. You may want to read pro's case again, and next time not drop the points related to human diseases. That was a key failing, to which I gave an extra highlight as it stuck in my mind.

>> "Nazi analogy taken out of context by you"
When you choose to exemplify Godwin's Law by pulling a Reductio ad Hitlerum, no one in their right mind is going to take you seriously on that contention.

-->
@Barney

Thank you for casting your vote and I believe we are all deserving of expressing our opinions but I find your last statement suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion.

RAGNAR: "doesn’t seem to favour con in any area, and TO VOTE HIM would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments."

The disease analogy was also not necessary. I think you misspoke here. I think the analogy was meant to say, "To vote for Con would be like voting for cancer." Am I right?

I also found the Nazi analogy taken out of context by you. The point of comparing the pro-choice and Pros position in the debate to what the Nazis DID was to highlight that LANGUAGE and LAWS have been used to discriminate and dehumanize particular groups of humanity, just like is done with abortion advocates. Sometimes that leads to mass extermination of these groups. I was nowhere saying Pro was a Nazi. The unborn are often treated no differently than unwanted cancer, a parasite, or a disease; something the Nazis did, and that kind of language was something that should be thought badly of and eliminated. Pro-choice uses words and laws in a similar manner. When those kinds of terms are used, and I have countless examples of were Pro-choice do such things with their semantics, it shapes how society at large view an unborn when it is convenient to them (i.e., the woman does not want the unborn). I think Pro-choicers never hold themselves accountable for what the unborn is - a human being; instead, they lessen what it is by words, just like the Nazis, American slavers, Apartheid, the Caste system in India, how women were sometimes looked upon in past centuries and different cultures as not in the same league as men, and so on. What other human beings would people opt to and advocate for in terminating their life because they don't see them as valuable enough to fight for? Justice is only just if applied without discrimination, equally to all human beings. How can justice be applied equally for all human beings when one class, the unborn, is excluded?

Hi all! Vote! Vote! Vote! 😁

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Bumb

-->
@SkepticalOne

You know, you can just say bumb

Is it just me, or does everyone become a better editor after the argument has been published?

Should anyone have missed the the flaws I pointed out, see my comment below starting with "In fairness". I'd be happy to entertain any analogy which does not have bias built-in.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I will let you go then. Though as far as flaws I have yet to see what you dislike, other then it shows a serious issue we are ignoring.
Have a good week!

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

I won't answer questions regarding an anology I consider to be unfair. I explained in detail the issues I have with it. It is up to you to fix the flaws if you want the conversation to proceed on that front.

Additionally, I think you are tracking similarly in "humans can't kill each other". I wonder how you're defining "human" that includes a fetus without the capacity for consciousness and excludes things such as terratomas or cancer. Plus, it should be noted how this statement denies justified killings such as self-defense and war which makes it incomplete and absent crucial nuance. Finally, even if we assume a fetus is a person with all accompanying rights, there is no right to use the body of another even if life depends on it, so this is no defense for your view. Rights apply to everyone the same - even the unborn.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I answered your question, but in the form of a question because that is the only way I think we can see eye to eye. If you do not like the scenario, then please explain why (though in detail, why not analogous?).

"there is no right to control the body of another" -Agreed, which is why I think it makes sense that humans cannot kill each other regardless of where they are located or their state of helplessness (such as the bodily dependence of a new born to its mother). What do you think?

Though I have to say these types of arguments seem to backtrack away from the argument at hand: Is it human or not? That to me seems to be the real question.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

I'm all for conversation, but I don't see much point in moving on to your questions until mine has been addressed. Plus, the questions you ask are either dependent on a non-analogous scenario (I've disputed the fairness of) or attempting to suggest dependence provides a justification for subverting human rights (there is no right to control the body of another). I think an honest attempt to answer my (one) question will explain where your priorities lie: equality, personal sovereignty, etc... or not.

-->
@SkepticalOne

If you want the answer to your question you need to answer the questions I posed and in the situation, otherwise you have ended the conversation (I can't help you after that). There is nothing anyone can do in fact, unless you yourself wish to keep up the conversation. (remember a conversation is a 2-way event, meaning that not only do I have to answer your questions, but you must answer mine as well)

No worries about the tagging, I will probably mess up at some point too XD,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

Again, you present a non-analogous situation. If we don't want our money spent on welfare, we stop funding it, which isn't the same as killing the recipients.

My argument isn't about dependence - it is about personal sovereignty, equality, etc. Pro-life either denies these or creates a situation where control of another persons body is available to all (which isn't all that different from the first option). I reject both of these options.

*Edit* Sorry, @logicae I tagged you when this should have been directed to @Alec. Apologies to both of you.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?"

Because the fetus can't control the fact that their life is dependant on someone else. People who are on welfare live off of the resources of people who aren't on welfare without their inherit consent, just as what a fetus does with a woman. Does this mean that we kill people on welfare? No. Same applies to a fetus. Being dependant on someone without their consent is not worthy of a death sentence.

-->
@logicae

In fairness, you've not answered my question. Rather you've presented a thought experiment which is more strawman-y that analogy. For instance, the woman is represented as thugs and the fetus is represented as completely benign. This is not representative of pregnancy in the real world. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, education, career, and life in drastic ways, and one needn't be a thug to want to avoid unwanted circumstances such as these.

So, I'll ask my question again: If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?

-->
@SkepticalOne

This is an important question,

Let's start by analyzing a scenario, tell me what you think:

*Over some lush and untamed jungle, far from the civilized world* Not knowing how you got there, you find yourself in the cargo section of an old stuffy jet plane. Climbing out of the hold, you discover three well armed men. You cautiously make your way toward them, having no other choice but to submit to their mercy, but then, upon learning of your presence, the gunmen decide you are not worth having around and they toss you out of their plane...dead.

In this example, did the owners of the plane have a right to kill you because you were in their property and requiring them to assist you to safety?

The problem with the argument you present is that you ignore the baby's perspective entirely. If that indeed is a human, it has the same rights as any other human. In other words, would you say that a mother should not have to care for a born baby, as it too requires the mother to stay alive? The unborn baby is simply that, but even more helpless.

Thanks for the question, hope to hear from you soon,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?

-->
@DynamicSquid

Yes, but the problem here is that by saying not having a past means you have no value, you assume that the past is the determining factor of value. This means that more past means more value and less past means less value (with 'no past' being the bottom and most extreme). This is why in the slavery example slaves were seen as less valuable, because they did not have the experience of the European colonists or in other words did not have the past of the colonists.

I noticed at the end of your last post you said, "They have contributed to the human race by being a human." This here is a separate issue, because now you assert the the unborn are not human. *What reasons do you have to think they are not human and how do they not apply to a born person as well?* (The issue we were discussing is whether or not your past gives you value, not what makes you human) However, I think that is the most important question when it comes to abortion, because being human assumes certain dignities such as the right to life, if the unborn aren't human then you would be right, but if they are then we would be justifying killing humans based on their age or past if you prefer. *see question above*

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

Well, what I mean by "past", and relating this back to abortion, is that all humans have a past, good or bad, big or small. They have contributed to the human race by being a human. Babies on the other had have been a human for exactly 0 hours. They have not contributed to our race in any way shape or form, if that makes any sense.

So I'm less worried about "what you did in your past", but rather "did you have a past?"

-->
@DynamicSquid

I would say not, for the reason that we do not see someone's past as the reason to value them. Example: Slavery. It is important to note that beyond the slave's skin-color, they were seen as lesser because of their past experience in Africa (It being far less developed in all). This prompted the slaveholders to treat them as property, as they couldn't understand the European lifestyle yet(this difference in experience).
*Modern Day* Do you think slavery is right? It seems quite rightly to have been extinguished if the past standard is not sound.

The thing about using pasts to determine value is that even those with a past can be deemed less valuable (and harmed).
Another question: Would you like to be discriminated against because someone thought your past was less valuable? (Your elders for example *though probably politicians these days XD*)

A good exchange this is becoming! Rare on the internet,
To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

Well, I just think that if you have a past, then you are valuable.

By your logic, are elders than more important than youth?

-->
@DynamicSquid

I see,
it is true that younger people lack experience that their elders have in the world. The question then becomes whether or not your experience determines the value of your life.

Thoughts?

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

Well, what I meant by a "contribution to society" was a person's past. I'm sure you have a past, whether it be small or big, or good or bad. It is a past none the less. However, babies do not have a past...

Also yes, I agree.

-->
@DynamicSquid

Interesting question, mind if I add a thought?

I agree it seems that we indeed care about relating with each other (fashion, peer pressure) and we certainly do praise contributions to society, but is that all? But who wants to relate to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao and who wants to be known for contributing destruction? This list seems to lack one fundamental backbone that gives both meaning. It is good that in the end we care about things, whether it is to relate to someone in a good way or to contribute something good to society, we search for our purpose in it all.

On the subject of abortion, you say that babies aren't relatable nor contribute to society, but you miss that important last question: Are they good? (Not like did they preform the moral act good, but are they in themselves valuable) Human life has that innate value, which is why we look first to protect newborns for example, we know that they are beyond material value like gold and also is why we look down upon those that hurt or kill, we see value in each other beyond our actions or superficial looks.

Perhaps this is why we are struggling to see the value in those that are hard to see, as you said, babies are not relatable, Indeed they are not, which is why many of them are killed each year(I think we know the numbers well). Like abominations before it (slavery, mass killings of every kind and shape), abortion is once more as PGA puts it an excuse to commit a horrendous act based on a difference of the person. Indeed it is and it needs to be said that many are waking up to this fad of an excuse for genocide.

Good question,

To Truth!
-logicae

Why do we care about things?

1. Relatability
2. Contribution to Society

Babies aren't relatable. Nor did they contribute to the society.

I can elaborate on this if anyone likes...

-->
@Barney

Thank you!

I've seen way too many people argue against birth control; so a debate focused on the approximate 13th week, should be refreshing to see. So good luck to you both!