Instigator / Con
4
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#1821

The Pro-Choice Position Should Not be Compared with Language or Actions Used by the Nazis

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
7
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

This debate is a result of a difference of opinion. My position is that Pro-choice advocates are dehumanizing the unborn, and this dehumanization is comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews. Whiteflame's position is, "I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison." (see comment # 44, https://www.debateart.com/debates/1667/abortion-should-be-legal?open_tab=comments&comments_page=3). He believes even if it were true, it still "inflames" people in a negative way in turning them away from listening to the argument rather than educating them. He states,

"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."

My Pro-life position is that even if the Nazi example is misconstrued and people are unwilling to hear it, the argument still needs to be made to highlight an injustice that is taking place.

***

1st Round --> Initial Arguments/opening statements
2nd Round --> Rebuttals and additional arguments
3rd Round --> Rebuttals and additional arguments
4th Round --> Rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments

***

Definitions:

Pro-choice is defined by a perception that the unborn should not be awarded the same rights as individuals born into the world alive, usually advocating a woman's right to control her own body, and supporting or advocating the right to legalized abortion.

Pro-life is defined by the perception that the unborn is due rights equal to individuals born into the world alive, advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses, and the outlawing of abortion.

These two definitions are a combination of input from my opponent and https://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life

Compare - Draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/compare

***

The onus or burden of proof is shared by each of us to demonstrate our position is more reasonable.

I will be using Canadian English except when quoting.

NOTICE: Only two days remain for the voting window!

-->
@Barney

Thank you for the clarification! I was not sure of your inference by "related." I did notice the word enemy but I see masks as a valuable tool in countering the spread of the disease, especially for those who don't know they have it yet venture into the public. In my opinion, identifying dehumanization can be used as a valid comparison. It depends on how deep the comparison goes.

Do you think this vilification is wide-scale in your society, especially with the cancel culture movement? I am an outsider (Canadian) looking in but I feel as the USA goes, so goes the rest of the world to a large extent. I also think that the current leadership in China is an existential threat in the future, so is socialism and big government to your society. I'm all for live and let live, yet it needs to be mutual.

-->
@PGA2.0

You may have missed said dehumanizing angle:

“People who don’t wear a mask will be soon painted as the enemy — just as they did the Jews in Nazi Germany.” -Republican State Rep. Danny McCormick

-->
@Barney

YOU: "A related news piece came up:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/louisiana-lawmaker-equates-mask-mandates-with-nazi-germany/"

How is this NY Post article related to my debate which is focused on a specific case - dehumanization? Are you associating the two just because the Nazis are cited in both? I already agreed that Reductio ad Hitlerum does take place in many examples.

-->
@TheUnderdog

YOU: "If your willing to put a woman through 9 months of pain to prevent an abortion, would you be willing to put a male through a few hours of vasectomy pain to prevent an abortion?"

It is not something I have put much thought into. To my mind, what would be the result? The end of humanity if this was universal, and who am I to play God? A man and woman unusually consent to have sex. How these two choose to practice birth control is their business as long as that does not involve the taking of existing human life (i.e., abortion as the method). That is the difference between abortion and other means of birth control, such as condoms or vasectomy. I am objecting to a moral wrong/unequal justice taking place, and what it may lead to when the floodgates are opened and this type of discrimination and dehumanization is turned to other groups.

This type of unjust thinking has a chain effect, as I believe is the case with BLM. I agree that black lives do matter, but so do the lives of those who protect the communities we live in who are largely forgotten and discriminated against because of the actions of a very few bad cops. Defunding the police is Democrat idiocy that the mainstream media, as their bedmates, has picked up upon. Your mainstream media is a propaganda and indoctrination machine. BLM, IMO, has a Marxist undertone in which they fuel hatred towards law enforcement, painting the indoctrinating picture that all police officers are racist and evil and that all Caucasians are the same. BLM are fueling riots, not peaceful protests, IMO. Justice was forgotten over a month ago and another agenda was adopted sponsored by the Democrat side of corporate America who pour in multimillion into this organization and movement. We are living in a "cancel culture" where everything that does not meet the Democrat left-wing approval is demonized. The funny thing is America seems to be buying yet more lunacy. These stupid liberal mayors who operate these liberal Democrat-run cities have totally lost it, driven by such braindead politicians as AOC and Nancy Pelosi who promote more anarchy and violence. These cities are collapsing in lawlessness.

I'm Canadian, but my opinion is that any American who votes Democrat is not thinking well but foolishly. Your country is at stake. I think this is a pivotal election. It might be too late to turn back now. Do you have a clue of what your media and Democrat Party is doing? Even the Supreme Court is partisan. There is a block of four that usually vote the same, especially over critical issues. Justice John Roberts is no friend of justice, either, IMO, providing the tiebreaker to poor thinking and ignoring your Constitution. Heaven help America!

You seem to be missing the significance of or turning a blind eye to what is being killed when an abortion takes place. Does it matter to you? This thinking is common with those who support pro-choice. They gloss over equal justice and the intrinsic value of being human. Once that is done, your culture is in danger of being lost to extremists, where their unjust rules are practiced more and more, IMO.

-->
@PGA2.0

If your willing to put a woman through 9 months of pain to prevent an abortion, would you be willing to put a male through a few hours of vasectomy pain to prevent an abortion?

A related news piece came up:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/louisiana-lawmaker-equates-mask-mandates-with-nazi-germany/

-->
@Barney
@PGA2.0

Thank you for voting! It’s a long debate to read through and I appreciate your taking the time.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

Ragnar, I believe you entirely missed the mark, misinterpreted what I said, and I will argue your points of contention after the vote is complete. It should be an interesting discussion. However, nothing less was expected.

-->
@whiteflame
@PGA2.0

--- RFD (1 of 3)---
To begin, I should state that since I don’t hate women, I am therefore biased in favor of them having rights, and as such pro has a much higher burden of proof to win points from me.
Additionally, the backwards selection of pro is the contender, may cause some errors in reference (I know I could refer to them by name, but I’ve learned that I am more impartial when I try to think of them as being named Pro and Con, in a manner similar to Tabula Rasa judging).

Interpreting the resolution:
With shared burden, pro must show harm from such a comparison, and con must show benefit. Merely refuting the other will net a tie.

Gist:
This debate is essentially about if fallacies are fallacious when made by groups you like.

0. Preambles
Both do a fine job here. I care more for the main contentions than back and forth about preciseness of BoP and such. As much as this is probably the most back and forth I’ve seen on this (really each of those could be their own debates, but shouldn’t be more than a footnote in this one).

1. Language
Con does an adequate job showing that in some categories phrasing can be compared. Pro calls this cherry picking.
Aside from Gish Galloping, this pretty much bleeds into later contentions which carry the core aspects of it better.

2. Laws
Con argues that Roe v. Wade was a Nazi law which denied people personhood. Pro explains why Nazi laws which stripped people of rights, are not comparable to laws which enforce some people having unalienable rights. And con extends. Near the end of the debate con even claims the abortions are actually forced (“Just like Nazi Germany, the enforcement is through unjust laws”), and pro-choice people are likewise trying to exterminate the elderly, the disabled, and any newborns… none of which was demonstrated in the debate.

3. Culture
As best I can understand it, con is claiming the pro-life movement was secretly indoctrinating the general population until such time as they were able to launch their final solution of aborting all fetuses to end the human race (“effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid...or subsequently forced upon them if necessary”)… The bigger the claim, the bigger the proof, and with babies still around (even birthed by pro-choice people), it’s self-evident that this didn’t happen. To use an analogy, it would be about like claiming movie Independence Day is a historical record, and everyone who says those cities weren’t destroyed is a liar.
Pro basically says con drifted off topic, failing to link what he cited to the debate.
Con argues in favor of cherry-picking from the wrong tree. … I can’t call it anything better than this, he outright confuses Antifa with the pro-choice movement.

--- RFD (2 of 3)---
4. convey a greater understanding
Pro argues that it clouds the issue with complex decades of history, rather than being an analogy which streamlines discussion as analogies are meant to do.
Con asserts this is wrong by pointing to his language laws and culture points but offers no real direct defense. He does mention how well documented it is, which was key to the evidence that it’s too loaded to convey greater understanding instead of being bogged down.
Pro extends, and makes a key point to which comparable harm must be shown for the comparison to be valid: “No one is mandating how individuals should behave towards the unborn; no one is requiring that they be tattooed with numbers or wear a symbol of oppression; no one is herding them into camps and gassing them in mass; no one is enforcing their views on abortion with military power.”

5. improved discussion
Pro argues it lowers things to a reductio ad Hitlerium fallacy, which distracts from the issues of importance, leading to such things as this very debate. He layers this nicely by pointing out Jewish people who are pro-life, who should definitely never be accused of being the varelse who tried to exterminate them. This of course leading directly to discussion being shut down and even turned into terrorism (really surprised this being cherry-picking was not addressed), rather than improved.
Con insists those very flaws are an improvement on the discussion.
Pro extends and flaunts this very debate as more proof.

6. The Importance of Context
Pro points out a physical toll on the mother, which con seems to argue the toll of merely having Jewish people around is just as bad as carrying a baby to term… What the fuck did I just read?
Pro points out that the aim of the pro-life movement is not genocide against any group, whereas the Nazis forced genocide on groups they disliked. Pro doubles down on his claim that pro-lifers exterminated (or at least are plotting to exterminate) the entire human race, and intentionally highlights while not countering the directly contradicting point that pro-life people continue to have children.
Con extends.
Pro extends and reminds everyone that the unborn have full capacity to gain rights, unlike victims of Nazis and similar groups.

--- RFD (3 of 3)---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Were the resolution that it is not possible to make such a comparison, con would win by a landslide, instead the debate repeatedly highlights why it is a harmful comparison and thus should not be used. It would be kinda like arguing that you technically can compare using solar power to nuclear bombings of cities, so that is the comparison that should be made. 🤯

Even in the end after three months, pro insists against all reason “Pro-choice do precisely what the Nazis did.”

Sources: tie
Both did really well on their research.
I will note that I really dislike both URL shorteners for hiding the quality. I likewise also dislike posting them in the comments. I do appreciate the numbered references holding the links (it takes no extra characters to do this).

Conduct:
Leaving this tied, but any insinuation that one side should potentially be killed, is never a good thing.

-->
@Barney

I enjoyed it!

Anyone interested in this debate, may benefit from an old blog post on mine on the subject of pro-abortion politicians: https://consistentmind.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/abortion-politics/

I'm about half way through an in depth reading of the debate right now, and was strongly reminded of that.

Neat, I /kinda/ got quoted in the preamble.

-->
@Barney

Very much appreciate your taking the time!

Glad there's a whole month in the voting period, as I would not want to rush through the reading.

-->
@PGA2.0

No worries. I don't want to win conduct for that.

-->
@whiteflame

I thought about it and apologize. You win the Conduct category!

-->
@PGA2.0

I understand that you're posting to respond to christopher_best, but I would appreciate if you didn't add to your arguments here, and I'm seeing a little of that bleeding into how you're addressing him.

-->
@MisterChris

"This is an interesting topic but will probably be an arduous slog to vote for. Respect to whoever votes on this thing."

My feelings are that to capture the bias and thought process of pro-choice, and do it justice, is a tedious task, but worth the risk. Having said that, there is not enough space in a debate to document all the various aspects of the dehumanization comparison and examples. The pro-choice dehumanizing process can be compared via a number of different avenues, such as with slavery, women, and various political systems such as apartheid, but Nazi Germany is perhaps the most documented case of dehumanization available. IMO, to counter the pro-life argument, the pro-choice advocates (the majority outlook on debate forums) just claim reductio ad Hitlerum to end any comparison or stop the discussion and examination of the pro-choice position.

-->
@MisterChris

Understandable. There's a lot written here, so I wouldn't blame someone for being turned off to it. Still, hoping to get a vote or two.

This is an interesting topic but will probably be an arduous slog to vote for. Respect to whoever votes on this thing.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for allowing me to do that!

-->
@whiteflame

Numerical listing of sources:
[1] https://www.amazon.ca/Less-Than-Human-Enslave-Exterminate/dp/1250003830
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16859440/
[3] https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34082686/Lammers_Stapel_dehumanization_GPIR.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DLammers_Stapel_dehumanization_GPIR.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIATUSBJ6BAODVM3CTJ%2F20200331%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200331T204703Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBUaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIGeLnFTijBokl5rCoq8R2o8JEBnyXSz7Y9tbug0aNwXvAiAwqBUQrqam0lLf%2BSzGjHRKEpx%2FU%2BEeHPfF7BaIUIz7cyq0AwgdEAAaDDI1MDMxODgxMTIwMCIMX9K8XQSrq3FzfX%2FFKpEDS2fKuSPmveYqXDZDverMw%2BKQOci%2FcJ9WeLpzQFrDsj4M5fO7sqEzq%2BkuR7L0MvHLhmIZOn1kWBKDlDsNBfgJTVvHEL%2BCjhIV5Y8xVJimBVyVItBzmmNoVLp1SLdbNoZcqO47oEDYHHHSAw8fm1Sriumd6RTYyNYXZhRP0fjoodvzRJkg8tc4DqlhadQOLWGO5LgRI3%2FduBq6FBQbTjnsvxFAVMqsAN5b0zo%2F3HTdabz9EpMFAB6I26Myk7eKTVui5eCqRo%2BsusBuQ3bVlLpYefFD3fBJfikaAa6NTMzo17NTt4x04m%2F8aDb84r%2BJuvnMR%2B9J1rG5UdZjVkWe14h0UTVpj%2BmNwwubW0g9An8kqzRLAZr%2BPKoQKXxytRX5vFyW9gIVkndQpFcc%2F3wcRBKZ9MHzBSJas97MJnuZ76wlzYwtKVuiD2Q1v5p7ViGHP%2FHJ%2BhTniD8c5W8xqc4TtN94nbrkHCfmqBn4F6XTd8XZ%2BwHCh2t6u2NhjXAS0%2F2m6W%2BP9TxZtjotAudt6VQ6OV43bJ8wzMaO9AU67AGyrW%2FdvZq9sfuHlP6AHtGRT06fVfcB23dgi3O6xpdtWG1VuJattT3lWVK7VPkCnBpcwheIB9oiwH4%2BUHPZdNo32KXdCBQUzCtB%2Fa6zsxLksNnhSDWxU2IkMEC0jat%2F7gNFWkWuKsoYTNLHqYH9a%2FjCLHvoMnzZ2%2BMhR222VdWYxZHPUztCSU6X6nOwOGyq%2FoWhKAlaui%2BedvrYbrzG9F5sQq983f%2BQ1H4d2CmgZ2PHimppf63RttJUP9hWdPjMhqg0IEvSU1s1xPtGXDRjazFiK2a0UsUu0qPdAzXvU0xcGYfzEYdddkSuyjNVfQ%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=826b39d9bae78a0dd457caec9c0679a2dc2a8e5f27190bfe0c9338f452b7603e
[4] https://www.psychologyconcepts.com/catastrophic-dehumanization-the-psychological-dynamics-of-severe-conflict-thomas-homer-dixon/
[5] http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
[6] http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html
[7] http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=220126.xml
[8] http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml
[9] http://humanist.de/wissenschaft/sagan001/
[10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29
[12]http://holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/derewigejude.html
[13]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite
[14]https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/21/scientist-professors-claim-that-unborn-babies-are-parasites-is-borderline-satanic/
[15]https://banned.video/watch?id=5d10f0797da9080012bba5e8
[16]https://media.lanecc.edu/users/borrowdalej/phl205_s17/violinist.html
[17]http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/
[18]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Practices_Act_1933
[19]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
[20]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nuremberg-laws
[21]https://roevwadefacts.com/

-->
@PGA2.0

I look forward to it!

-->
@SkepticalOne

(^8

It expands on our debate and gets into more of my charge against the pro-choice position and unjust laws by identifying what is being done and listing examples to compare the two.

-->
@PGA2.0

Looks interesting!

-->
@Barney

Then I look forward to your comments after the debate on these two comments.

-->
@PGA2.0

The place to advance your Nazi comparison is inside the debate rounds. If I read any of it in the comments, it would create undue influence on my vote.

-->
@Barney

Not only this, it raises questions in my mind as to why we should have the CHOICE to kill some innocent human beings but not others. Should we not treat all human beings equally under the law? Are not all human beings valuable? If not then you win, you can "justify" killing those you mitigate as less than others, provided you have the power or might to do so. But how is that morally justified? How can you call it justice? Justice deals with equal treatment under the law. When you don't have that there is no justice to my way of thinking. The fundamental first and foremost human right is a natural right to my mind; the right to life. Once this right is diminished unjustly anything can be done.

-->
@Barney

So, in your first statement, your view is that the newborn is deserving of greater or equal merit to the unborn. But as you continue your language suggests only greater than. It suggests greater than exclusively in regard to the newborn. Your view in your second statement is one group of human beings is considered of lesser worth than another group of human beings and you base this on development/hierarchy. This is where I have a hard time understanding how your view is just, legally and morally speaking, and it raises some concerns and red flags in my way of thinking. What makes your view any better than the sediments expressed by the Nazis regarding the Jews leading up to and during WWII? The Nazi sentiment, expressed in their propaganda, was that the Jew was subhuman - the Untermenschen, hierarchically inferior to themselves. Thus the language they used in depicting the Jew was often metaphorical in nature depicting the Jew to an animal, a parasite, a germ, a disease, a contagion. That also led to justification in their thinking resulting in putting such thinking into actions by barbaric treatment of these perceived subhuman, non-human, or animal-like groups.

As for your idea that the pro-life position regards the newborn as less valuable than the unborn, while this may be the case with some, I do not believe it is the opinion of the majority nor me. I believe all human beings deserve to be treated with the same value and self-worth since we are all created in the image and likeness of God as human beings. Hence the term pro-life. We are for the life of the unborn just as we are for the life of the newborn, the toddler, teen, and adult human being.

-->
@PGA2.0

I would say a newborn generally deserves ≥ to the unborn. Which is an area of disagreement I get into with a number of pro-lifers, who firmly believe the newborn deserves < to the unborn.

Of course within the unborn, I would use a pretty clear developmental hierarchy relating to worth. This is easily exemplified with the pain of miscarriage varying based on how far into the pregnancy it occurs.

-->
@Barney

Interesting statement. I'm running it through my mind. Are you agreeing (i.e., "glad") the unborn deserve rights equal to the newborn?

-->
@PGA2.0

While we have our disagreements, I am glad to see you're not one of the pro-lifers who believes in the immediate dropping of rights post birth: "the unborn is due rights equal to individuals born into the world alive."