PGA2.0

ME: "Why are you choosing 13 weeks?"

YOU: "Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks. This is mentioned in the description of this debate."

I see. Because more abortions occur at or before 13 weeks, it makes it okay to kill human beings at or before this period of time!

ME: "1. [...]Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman."

YOU: "This is true of human cancer as well. Your standard should not grant rights to cancer."

This is a fatal flaw in your position. Human cancer is not a human being. It does not have the ability to develop reasoning or the human capacities that human beings do. A human being has its own individual organs that work together to help the human organism live and grow. Cancer destroys the functionality of human beings. It is a malignancy in the cells of a human being, not the human being itself. A human being is its own entity.

***

ME: ""2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe."

YOU/SKEPTIC: "We don't observe personalities at conception."

That does not necessarily mean that it is not growing and developing, just like the physical body of the human being.

We don't observe your thoughts either unless you express them either orally, through writing, or via signing. There are lots of things we cannot observe yet know through logic that these things exist necessarily. We don't see the wind. We see and feel its effects. We don't see logic. It has no physical form (immaterial) yet without it, nothing makes sense nor can communication take place. Thus, it is necessary in forming and understanding concepts.

SKEPTIC: "We don't observe personalities at conception. That is blatantly false. And this dovetails into my point: the absence of any semblance of consciousness or even the structures necessary for it disallows innocence or guilt. By the loose definitions you are using we might say an inanimate object is 'innocent'. This is simply an emotional appeal built on strained words.

Again, you misrepresent me. I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception. You charge me again with something I am not guilty of saying. Do you observe personalities once the brain and awareness is functional in the unborn or are you arbitrarily choosing this point of commencement?

Those "structures" are developing, just like the personality of a newborn or toddler is not as DEVELOPED as that of an adult, generally speaking.

Again, how can you condemn someone (a living human being) to death who has done nothing wrong?

As for your inanimate object, it lacks what is necessary for personhood so it is a false analogy. The unborn does not lack what is necessary, so the question is when does personality begin? Does it just "magically appear" at a particular stage of development - poof - or is it in its development from the moment it exists, thus part of its nature? And from observation when have you ever witnessed a human being who is not a personal being? On a side track, this type of prodding brings to mind how consciousness starts from an inanimate object. How does something that is not conscious acquire consciousness? How does something that is inorganic first acquire consciousness?

As for your claim of logical fallacies, there are lots of pitfalls in using language we both are guilty of, based on ambiguities. You are ALSO making various appeals such as that of the appeal to ignorance on the lack of evidence (i.e., not observed, therefore does not exist), of which I make a similar appeal (You can't prove when scientifically, therefore, you should grant the benefit). You exclude the idea of personhood until the individual has a functioning brain and is aware or perhaps self-conscious. If personhood is part of its nature of being human then it is present at fertilization, just under-developed, so that does not correspond to your exclusivity of it being non-existent until a particular stage of development. And the argument I use is if you cannot prove with certainty then you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. You just don't go around killing things unless you know what they are or you could become guilty of murder. Do you know what the unborn is and when it becomes a person?

Fallacies are errors in reasoning, not necessarily factual errors (i.e., a thing may exist - thus a fact - even if we are unaware of its existence or misrepresent it in our reasoning).

ME: "I have never said pregnancy is a given with sex.

YOU: "Great - you agree consent to sex is not agreeing to 'inflict' anything on oneself - except maybe a good time."

Again, as you did in the debate, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that consent to sex raises the possibility of later pregnancy. If that happens there is a responsibility to protect the innocent human life that results unless you can establish morally that it is okay to kill innocent human beings.

***

ME: "The definition you provided in our first debates..."

YOU: "...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."

Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position.

***

ME: "Second, you were the person that equates personhood to legality. Hence, my response, "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood." I'm defining what I mean. You are the one who only includes or equates personhood to birth."

YOU: "I am relying on the status quo. If you want to challenge that, you'll need to do better than shift the burden. If you were able to argue for the personhood of the unborn without causing absurdities or conflicts, you'd have my vote. I personally don't see how it can be done. I think I've been more than fair on this particular point given that I have allowed it may be acceptable for personhood to be granted at some point before birth when the capacity for consciousness exists."

My opinion is that you granted it to avoid accountability. I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development. Blackmun declared the unborn a nonperson, a potential person once born, all based on assertion and interpretation of existing laws at that time that went back over a century. As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person, hence a personal being, before birth, the benefit should go to protecting the unborn. Roe v. Wade hinges, in part, on the personhood issue.

YOU: "All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.

***

3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?

4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs.

ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
YOU: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."

You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies.

YOU: "Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works."

ME: "No, granted, not in that case, but there are additional considerations here. As I said, the harm is relative when you compare two different things that are not overly related.
1. The burglar is (usually) a stranger. The unborn shares her DNA.
2. The burglar is guilty of wrongdoing, an immoral act. The unborn are innocent of wrongdoing.
3. The burglar is accountable for his actions, able to reason about breaking the law and invading personal space. The unborn are not yet accountable.
4. The unborn is NOT part of the woman's body, although it is attached. Thus, she is doing harm to ANOTHER body, not her own."

YOU: "All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
1. No - you yourself have said that the DNA of the unborn is distinct (ie. not shared) You can't have it both ways...
2. Without a consciousness, the unborn cannot be guilty or innocent.
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.
"Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body.

Why are you choosing 13 weeks?

1. The DNA is distinct in that there are two contributions to the unborns DNA, not one. Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman.

2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe. We observe that a new entity comes into existence at fertilization, a fully functioning organism in the sense that everything needed for its internal development, other than nutrients and an environment to sustain it, is governed from within. With nutrients and the environment, you too require something from without yourself yet you are still yourself. That unborn entity is a personal being or can you establish human beings are not personal beings?

ME: "Therefore, since neither you nor science can determine when personhood begins, the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of any doubt since we are talking about human rights."

YOU: "You're misrepresenting my position suggesting that my "uncertainty" (6 or 7 month of pregnancy is what I am willing to allow) equates to the unborn automatically being considered persons. How does that follow? This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden to me rather than making a case for the personhood of the unborn. That's broken thinking, bud."

What you are "willing to allow" is a personal opinion unless that is the case. Your position is conjecture unless you can establish scientifically and with certainty when personhood begins. I have not seen where this is the case. Thus, how can you justify killing a human being in which you have not verified whether it is a person?

If you were to look back upon your life, perhaps even viewing an ultrasound of you at your earliest stages of development, would you call that "you" or someone else? Would you be able to say that YOU began to grow and develop at fertilization or was it someone else until a certain age and stage of development was reached? Were you none existent at fertilization or was that distinct DNA yours? Obviously, something new and different started to exist at fertilization, a new, individual human being. Was the new ORGANISM or entity you? If not, what was it? If you can't answer these questions with certainty then should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt you have?

To be frank, the after debate discussion is far more important than the debate itself. It gives a chance for both sides to expose hidden and unexpressed points that may be missed.

And I'm saying all this not to be nasty to you but in the hopes that the realization will strike home in what you are doing.

What it boils down to is do you believe that every human being should have the most basic right - the right to life. You do not. Join the ranks of elitists on the scale of dictators with this particular view. They make up excuses on why some human beings are less than others to exploit or eliminate them. The woman who chooses an abortion is doing likewise. Her 'unwant' of it causes her to justify its death as an inconvenience, and after all, it is not the same as her. She is of far greater worth! So, what is her excuse? You named some of them:

Post 139: "Inconvenience or unwantedness are sufficient reasons for abortion when the fetus lacks consciousness - and at 13 weeks (where most abortions occur) consciousness does not exist."

Yet where do you apply the terms "inconvenient and unwanted" to justify killing another human being other than with the unborn in such a serious manner? If you deem me inconvenient and unwanted should you be permitted to kill me?

Post 128: "I pointed out (even by your reasoning) abortion is justifiable in that it can be seen as a type of self defense and an UNWANTED pregnancy represents a threat to a person's EDUCATION, CAREER, BODY, and life."

The first word capitalized is like waste product, the kind you throw away or get rid of. Education, career goals, bodily rights are the excuses used to justify taking the unborn individual human beings life.

Back up to Post 131 if you want my definition of fully functioning. You are trying to misrepresent what I said again.

Post 131: "Its internal system is functioning in the desired manner to help it grow and develop. By fully functioning, I mean that it has everything required in its internal genetic makeup to develop and mature. The thing impeding it from maturing is not its inner workings but an external factor, the woman's choice."

Sorry, I missed these points:

YOU: "You showed no example of my language in this debate being "dehumanizing", therefore your charge is unwarranted.
Is a zygote viable, Peter? If not, it is clearly *not* fully-functioning. Retreating to philosophical ambiguities to make your language seem more legitimate is no defense and its disingenuous."

Any language that portrays a human being as less than it is can be classed as a form of dehumanization, infrahumanization when not overtly obvious. I could go through each round to demonstrate cases of this, The constant fact is that you do not give it the same rights you give the woman - the basic right to life - speaks volumes of how you perceive it. Not granting it this right says the woman is a more valuable human being in your estimation otherwise you would be fighting like I am for its dignity and human worth.

As I said, it is fully functional. In its development at that stage, it is no different than any other human beings at this early stage. It is functioning as it should as a human being at that stage of growth.
I

ME: "Can you say with certainty that science has determined when a person starts?"

YOU: "Can you? Of course not. I don't understand why you continue to appeal to science when you've been burned on that line of reasoning in this debate - science doesn't draw any conclusions on personhood.

There you have it. You state that "science doesn't draw any conclusions on personhood." Therefore, since neither you nor science can determine when personhood begins, the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of any doubt since we are talking about human rights. Human rights were the weakness of your debate. You sidestepped the question nicely, IMO!

Again, I ask you, how is the law just if it does not apply the same standard of human rights to all individual human beings? How is justice served if the most basic of all human rights is not applied equally under the law to all human beings?

Let me clarify my statement below:

R1: Person: A human being regarded as an individual.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/241/abortion-the-woman-should-not-have-the-right-to-choose-with-one-exception

ME: "And that is the point I was making. The harm is not equal in degree."

YOU: "Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works."

No, granted, not in that case, but there are additional considerations here. As I said, the harm is relative when you compare two different things that are not overly related.
1. The burglar is (usually) a stranger. The unborn shares her DNA.
2. The burglar is guilty of wrongdoing, an immoral act. The unborn are innocent of wrongdoing.
3. The burglar is accountable for his actions, able to reason about breaking the law and invading personal space. The unborn are not yet accountable.
4. The unborn is NOT part of the woman's body, although it is attached. Thus, she is doing harm to ANOTHER body, not her own.

The "right" to personal autonomy should not bar another person having identical/equal rights - the right to life. Both the woman and the unborn have separate bodies. Do you want to go down the road of me not having the same right to life as a human being that you do? If you do, then what does it matter if the elite (those in charge) deem the female unequal to the male regarding life, as seemed to be the preference in China with the one-child policy? The smoker's right to smoke is limited by the non-smoker's right to protect their lungs, so not all rights apply to every situation when they interfere with the most basic of rights that every innocent human being SHOULD have, the right to life. The 'sovereign' right to bodily autonomy only extends so far. There are limits to your personal freedom concerning your body yet you are giving the woman greater control than you have in doing what she wants. You do not have the right to kill an innocent human being yet you think she should.

***

ME: "The psychological harm is often self-inflicted."

YOU: "1. I did not say psychological - I said physiological referring to the strain pregnancy puts on a body."

My mistake. I apologize. How is the physiological harm greater to the woman? She still lives. Her most basic right is still intact.

YOU: "2. Something cannot be self-inflicted when two people are necessarily involved. Not to mention, you're assuming pregnancy is a given with sex (It isn't)."

Ever heard of the saying, 'No means no?' The woman has the choice of whether to engage or not. Although it takes two for pregnancy to happen, by refusing to engage for the reason that she could become pregnant or because she is not ready to have a child is a sufficient reason for the man not to engage. Without her consent, the pregnancy does not happen, except when her personal rights of consenting are violated.

PLUS, you are arguing for harm to her in carrying the unborn since it is her body that receives and nurtures the unborn. She is the one you are arguing is experiencing physical and/or psychological harm.

Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman.

The part about sex = pregnancy is a misrepresentation you perpetuated in the debate and you are doing it here too. I have never said pregnancy is a given with sex. Ever. I'm arguing for the case WHEN sex produces pregnancy not the case that sex automatically produces pregnancy.

***
ME: "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood."
YOU: "Human rights necessarily includes personhood."
ME: "You: Hence, the name - HUMAN."
YOU: "Human =/= person. Example: human cancer."

The definition you provided in our first debates is at odds with "Human =/= person." Let me remind you:

R1: Person: A human being regarded as an individual.

That PERSON has cancer. Human cancer would be cancer that human beings or personal beings get. Humans are not cancer. (Human = cancer) Cancer is something they get. That statement says nothing of whether human beings are personal beings. It is your burden of proof to show that personhood begins at birth, not just assigned there by Blackmun's bias.

Second, you were the person that equates personhood to legality. Hence, my response, "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood." I'm defining what I mean. You are the one who only includes or equates personhood to birth. You made that clear in your first debate. Not only that, but the association was purely subjective, and assertive, not backed up by science, neither was the Blackmun opinion.

And that is the point I was making. The harm is not equal in degree.

ME: "Men and women both have the right to defend themselves from harm. This is equality."
Thank you for this conversation!
Yes, they do, but neither has the right to kill an innocent human being without their life being threatened by it, a human being that has done nothing wrong."

YOU: "In the debate, I provided the harm that can come from an unwanted pregnancy. I don't accept your arm-hitting analogy as valid. The consequences a woman faces are long lasting and may have permanent repercussions. I would argue the physiological/biological strain alone is sufficient to warrant self defense should the pregnancy occur without consent."

Harm is a relative term and must be applied in relation to something. The degree of harm done to the woman is not equal to the harm done to the unborn. The woman still lives. The unborn does not. The woman is a human being, but so is the unborn. So, how is the value equal here?

What percentage of pregnancies result in the death of the woman?
What percentage of pregnancies result in the abortion of the unborn?

The psychological harm is often self-inflicted. A good percentage of women consider the unborn to be a blessing so it is how the unborn are looked at negatively that causes the issues. Our society is good at playing the victim when they don't want something they were originally complicit in creating. It can be a form of justification.

ME: "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood."

YOU: "Human rights necessarily includes personhood."

Hence, the name - HUMAN. Not only this, in our first debate you gave a definition of a "human being" as a "person." The two-terms are usually used interchangeably.
***
ME: "The legal issue is one of justice. Pros opening statement mentioned the UN declaration on human rights yet not once were equal rights applied to ALL."

YOU: "You don't seem to grasp that the reasoning you use is overly broad and allows much more than just the unborn. ie. Cancer and STD's shouldn't be granted rights in the attempt to extend rights to the unborn. Essentially, if we followed your view, we would extend rights to *more* than all."

Is the unborn a human being? You said yes.
Are the same rights being applied to it as with other human beings? The answer is obvious. They are not. Thus, the UN Declaration on human rights is discriminatory. It does not apply EQUALLY to ALL human beings. It has the pretension of being just but it is not. Justice is equal treatment under the law. An innocent human being/victim should not be condemned to death.

As I said before, and it was believed by the framers of the Declaration of Independence, some truths are self-evident, and one of those is that of the right to life. That right is a natural right that SHOULD apply to all human beings or else any kind of atrocity is permissible in the hands of the elite and powerful.

ME: "Pro was SILENT on when personhood begins. He can't answer that question with certainty, thus the benefit of personhood SHOULD be given to the unborn since Pro does not know whether it is a person. Not only this, but he also conceded the argument. I had no need in pursuing it further."

YOU: "Given that personhood is a legal designation, I can answer when personhood begins with certainty: birth. Also, you mistakenly deem an internal critique of your argument as a concession on my part. In that critique, I pointed out (even by your reasoning) abortion is justifiable in that it can be seen as a type of self defense and an unwanted pregnancy represents a threat to a person's education, career, body, and life. You did not challenge this as I remember."

I did challenge the person's right to kill another because of inconvenience or unwantedness. (see Woman's Health, R2, P2; under Bodily Autonomy, and under Judith Jarvis-Thomson, R3; and with every argument for justice and equal rights, for instance, which opposes your "abortion is justified/self-defence" argument).

Personhood is an arbitrary legal designation. Blackmun did not know when "person" begins. His interpretation of Texas law can be argued to misrepresent what they believed back then on personhood. Can you say with certainty that science has determined when a person starts? Thus, we are dealing with a philosophical and moral issue. Therefore, I asked you when personhood begins. All you could give is your personal belief.

What is more, what makes his view or your view (since you agree) a just view? The heart of the debate, IMO, is about morality and the law. The word "should" is vital. It implies a moral imperative. You said:

"law and morality are not interchangeable terms. Law is the "system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties". [5] On the other hand, morality is [a] particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society". [6]"

My point was that equal rights require that everyone is treated the same under the law. The law has to do with fairness, with equal rights, or else there is no justice. Thus, any law that discriminates against innocent human beings and does not treat them equally is an unjust law because of its partiality. Abortion, except in rear circumstances, therefore, is an unfair law.

Regarding self-defence, does defending myself permit me to use undue force if my life is not threatened? If I cause you some discomfort, does that permit you to kill me? If someone puts me on your land against my will, and I have no means of communicating this, does that allow you to take the law into your own hands and kill me? If the paperboy is delivering a paper next door and cuts across the corner of my property, can I kill him while he is on my property? I'm defending it against an "intruder." And what is an intruder? Is it your biological dependant? If so, why can't a woman legally kill her two-year-old because she doesn't want it anymore?

Me: "How are a man's rights equal to hers?"

You: "Men and women both have the right to defend themselves from harm. This is equality."

Thank you for this conversation!

Yes, they do, but neither has the right to kill an innocent human being without their life being threatened by it, a human being that has done nothing wrong. Plus, if I hit you hard on the arm with my fist, (malicious intent to hurt your arm) do you then have the right to kill me? What if I had no intention of hitting you hard on the arm but I was trying to hit something else and accidentally hit you instead. Do you then have the right to kill me?

What intent do you think the unborn has to use the woman's body? Do you think it has in mind to harm her? It was not mindful of causing harm if that is what you want to call it. Many women look upon it being there as a blessing, not a curse. It did not place itself there. In 95-99% of cases, the woman consented to have sex knowing, as you adequately explained, that not all sex leads to pregnancy. When it does it was her consent that was partly responsible for it being there. It was her choice to engage in sex. How can you blame the unborn for being there?

"I did not refer to the unborn as any of these things in this debate. This is a strawman, Peter. Also, it cannot be accurately stated the unborn (a term which applies to a broad range of development) is a "*fully-functioning* actual human being". This is one of the objections I have to your language. You misrepresent the biological facts and then (wrongly) accuse me of misleading language."

'You' can be used in the generic sense as referencing the pro-choice position or in the specific sense in referencing you as a person. Having said that, I believe you did, whether overtly or covertly. Personally, it is nothing I hold maliciously against you. It is an observation I am making about the language used to inform the reader of what is taking place. That was my point in the debate. Dehumanization is taking place in the way the unborn is looked upon and described by pro-choicers. Sometimes the person doing so is unaware they are doing so. When someone says "a group of cells, potential human beings" they do not take into consideration that it is a complete and separate entity from the woman. I believe you used this misrepresentation when you said it was "a part of the woman's body" in a previous debate. It is not a part of her body. If it was the woman would have four arms and four legs, and possibly a penis. That kind of language misleads people into believing it is not its own individual being. It merges and lessens its importance.

Speaking of biological facts, I believed you misrepresented what I said multiple times. That may have been because you misunderstood what was said, or I said it poorly. After voting is complete, I will highlight some of these areas to inform others. I will probably use some of the examples in my current debate since the subject is on whether a comparison is valid between the language used by the Nazis and the pro-choice movement in devaluing life.

"It cannot be accurately stated the unborn is a *fully-functioning* actual human being."

Is it an actual human being? In Roe v. Wade, do you think Blackmun was right in his assessment of "potential life is involved?" Potential life? It either is living, or it is not. If it is living, then it is no longer potential.

Is the unborn functioning as a human being? Or is it only half functioning or half working as a human being? How do you draw the line on what I mean by fully-functioning? If it is only half functioning as a human being, then what other kinds of being is it functioning as? In other words, what kind of a being is it functioning as? Semantically, can there be a difference between fully functioning and fully functional? What context is the term used? To find out, you must consider the rest of the text. Besides, are any of us fully functional, utilizing every function a human being has?

Its internal system is functioning in the desired manner to help it grow and develop. By fully functioning, I mean that it has everything required in its internal genetic makeup to develop and mature. The thing impeding it from maturing is not its inner workings but an external factor, the woman's choice.

"Leveraging something so extreme falls under number of logical fallacies."

Extreme in what way? Extreme and intense in the dehumanization that takes place - yes. When you refer to a human being as an animal, disease, virus, waste, parasite, a group of cells, potential human beings, unwanted, instead of a fully-functioning actual, individual human being, to justify killing it, I think that is extreme. I think it paints a very unfavourable picture of what the unborn is. And I believe pro-choicers hold this extreme view because they are influenced to feel this way.

They are extreme in defending the "woman's rights" but think nothing of the unborn's life or rights. As I have said many times, the greatest nature right is the right to life.

"When the CDC looks at "Woman's Health (and the Harm Done) Health can be argued for the woman and the unborn. " You are combining the health number of one, to the other. Effectively calling them one organic machine."

No, I am not calling them one, I am comparing the number of deaths of two different groups. I am saying that the death toll is far higher for the unborn. It exceeds that of the pregnant women who die giving birth or from complications. I am saying that the hurt to the unborn is more significant, for they lose their lives. They never get to experience the rest of their life. The woman is portrayed as the victim, yet she is alive while the unborn is dead. She chooses to kill it. In perhaps 95-99% of cases, sex was consensual. Sex comes with possible risk and responsibility that is way to often shuffled off when pregnancy occurs with an easy fix.

Thank you for allowing me to do that!

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/

"Pro made a strong case about Womans health. Great details and stats. Showed harm if pregnancies are banned. I believed what was being said."

It amazes me how you guys only see harm from the woman's side. What about the unborn? What about the harm done to it? Have you every considered that?

"Con focused a bunch on personhood, and Nazi's Implying that having legal abortions is like running an unjust society not better than the Nazis. Con also kept repeating that everyone is treated equal under the law."

I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood. Did that argument even register? I asked the question of how laws are just if they are not applied to all human beings? I showed how even though the unborn are human beings they are not treated equally under the law. I showed how unjust laws lead to gross human atrocities, such as in Nazi Germany, and I gave stats on how an even greater human toll is taking place with the unborn death toll. The keyword in "Abortion should be legal" is the word "should. The word "should" carries a moral requirement. Contrary to what Pro said, it is not only a legal matter but also a moral issue.

"Pro did a good job questioning the definition of personhood, giving some std and cancer examples."

Pro was SILENT on when personhood begins. He can't answer that question with certainty, thus the benefit of personhood SHOULD be given to the unborn since Pro does not know whether it is a person. Not only this, but he also conceded the argument. I had no need in pursuing it further.

What do STDs and cancer have to do with abortion?

"The debate is about the law. Pro made better arguments about the impact of having legal abortion. Con did not paint a clear picture on if abortions are illegal."

The legal issue is one of justice. Pros opening statement mentioned the UN declaration on human rights yet not once were equal rights applied to ALL. He made the statement of equal rights for all human beings but could not demonstrate the unborn were being treated equally. Throughout the debate, the only side considered by him was the woman's rights. Where is the justice here? A woman, usually for selfish reasons is permitted to kill another INNOCENT human being without penalty. How are a man's rights equal to hers?

"Con also miscategorized the rights differences brought yup between a man and a woman and how they use their body."

How is that? I agreed that both men and women have a right to defend themselves against malicious attacks. Nowhere do I believe that equal justice is applied in the situation the woman finds herself in (pregnant). The natural home of the unborn is in the womb. You would not exist if that home were denied you. Do you think that the discomfort for nine months the woman experiences justifies an even greater response of killing the unborn?

"Finally, credibility is substantially eroded when Nazi's are brought in for comparative purposes. It just undermines the entire argument from Con."

The Nazi point is an extreme example that drives home the issue of the injustice that is taking place here. The model shows that a group of human beings are being discriminated against and dehumanized, just like the Nazis discriminated against and dehumanized Jews. It does not undermine my entire argument. Six million-plus Jews killed because people became oblivious to the injustice taking place or failed to speak up against it in that society. They were slowly convinced that the Jew, the gypsy, the Slav, the deformed, and many others were not of the same quality of humanness that the German was. 1.6 billion unborns since Roe v Wade have been killed to date, and people are oblivious to the carnage. The numbers spiked during the sexual revolution and with Roe V Wade. The value of human life was cheapened. Thus, the topic is very relevant since we are doing the same thing with the unborn that the Nazis did to the Jewish people. We are killing groups of human beings in numbers never before experienced in modern human history. Abortion and pro-choice advocacy has lead to the greatest genocide to date in modern history.

"Pro brought up some valid fallacy issues with Con's arguments."

He listed fallacies. He never proved the case.

"Con attempted to change the definition of the woman to woman and unborn in stats framing. This for me was an area of no return. Con had just argued about the independent personhood of a fetus and then argues that a woman and fetus are one, for the pure purposes of trying to misapply statistics on the acquisition of abortion to woman health, at which point it could be argued there was an adoption of the Violinist theory."

How did I change the definition of the woman to the woman and unborn and what does that mean?

I NEVER argued that the woman and the unborn are one. I objected to Pros statements on how the unborn was part of the woman's body. The unborn is its own separate entity.

What I tried to show was that the unborn are killed in far greater numbers than women who die during childbirth.

As I pointed out, the violinist scenario was not equal to the unborn scenario. The violinist is a total STRANGER. The unborn shares the same DNA with the woman and is her biological son or daughter. Words like fetus and zygote are words that "infrahumanize" the unborn. Although they describe different stages of development of the human being they have come to be seen in a negative connotation. That is to say, they make the unborn appear less than it is, a fully alive human being. While perhaps acknowledging it is a human being people then proceed to treat it as a less equal human being.

"Pro did a better job of staying focused on the issue at hand and repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to that point. It is something that I appreciate."

The issue at hand was whether abortion SHOULD be legal. That is not only a legal issue but a moral issue. If not all human beings are being treated equally under the law how is that just or moral? Pro could not show why treating unborn human beings equally was just. He could not show how abortion was a just law. He gave the woman rights that no other human being should have, the ability to chose whether other INNOCENT human beings live or die.

(^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.

Yes, I think it was a slant that had not been taken often before from what I have read.

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

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.

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.

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

Thank you very much, SkepticalOne! I appreciate your condolences.

YOU: "Pro lifers in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall)."

I want to remind you again, when you make something legal more people will do that thing, thus more human beings will be killed. This has been proven by the statistical data on abortions before and after the sexual revolution, before and after Roe V Wade.

I'm not following it so I'm asking for you to clarify it.

>>> "Are all human beings intrinsically valuable? If not then what does it matter what we do with teenagers or the unborn?"
YOU "You may want to be more careful of your phrasing when referencing teenage girls.
As per your question: see my previous answers on it."

YOU, previously: "Pro-life politicians push to maximize teen pregnancy rates even at the expense of increased abortions. And pro-lifers in the general public lend support for this by electing and re-electing them, sometimes as single-issue voters."

And again,

YOU: "Pro lifers in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall)."

***
It is wrong for teenagers to be having sex at such a young age and giving them condoms gives the message that it is okay to have sex at 13-years-old as long as you protect yourself.

What I believe you are missing is that you are promoting doing something wrong and since you promote it then you should also promote killing innocent human beings as the countermeasure. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make two wrongs.

YOU: "You may want to be more careful of your phrasing when referencing teenage girls."

Maybe I am missing your point here but let me expand.

To my point about teens and the unborn. Once you cross the line that all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then anything can be justified as long as you have the numbers, and/or the authority and power to enforce such laws as killing them. In no way do I, in my belief, believe that teenagers are less valuable or more valuable but of equal value to every other human being. Your inference seems to suggest otherwise. Please be clear on that point. Furthermore, the very fact that you take offence to the one and not the other seems to suggest that you place more value on the teen than the unborn human being. Thus, if that is the case, you are treating some human beings differently and more valuable than other human beings. So, if that is the case, you have a double standard. You object to my point while practicing the same thing you are accusing me of.

Both teens and the unborn should be valued and protected against harm. Who made the pro-choicer God in that they want to give the choice on who lives and who dies to the woman? I will remind you that the death toll for the unborn in sheer numbers is the greatest holocaust to date in modern history. Since 1973 there have been more than 1.6 billion such human beings killed/murdered. I pointed out in the debate that with the sexual revolution, then Roe V Wade the number of abortions rose significantly. Human life became discardable for this group of human beings.

>>> "Who is pushing to maximize teen pregnancies? That is nonsense."
YOU: "As already stated: "decreased teen abortions by 48%. The only people opposed to this were pro-lifers" and "in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall)."

Rightly so, they should push for abstinence or are you telling me you are for teenagers (i.e., 13-17-year-olds) having sex and getting pregnant? If that is the case you should be pushing for changing the law.

We live in a culture that promotes sex. Education should start at home. Again, it is a moral issue. This issue is, is it okay to kill innocent human beings because you don't want them or they are inconvenient? That is the point we are arguing.

YOU: "Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion?"

YOU: "Pro-life politicians push to maximize teen pregnancy rates even at the expense of increased abortions. And pro-lifers in the general public lend support for this by electing and re-electing them, sometimes as single-issue voters."

"Push to maximize teen pregnancy?" "At the expense of increased abortions?"

Who is pushing to maximize teen pregnancies? That is nonsense.

Pro-lifers do not think abortion should be a form of birth control. I, personally, am okay with contraception use to prevent pregnancy (although I do not think contraception is the ideal choice, neither do I think sex outside of marriage is either), but I'm not okay with abortion and I'm not okay promoting sex for minors by handing out contraception. I think that sends the wrong message. Society, as a whole, promotes sex outside of marriage and all kinds of immoral behaviours. That does not make it right, just acceptable. Education and teaching children what is right is key. Thus, my second previous point is still the question that needs answering. Are all human beings intrinsically valuable? If not then what does it matter what we do with teenagers or the unborn? You seem to feel it does matter for one group but not another.

I'm not sure why you are tying in birth control with abortion in this manner. To me, it gives the appearance of villanizing the Pro-life stance. What I understand you as saying is that because Pro-lifers oppose giving out contraception to teenagers they increases abortions? What I feel you failed to address or consider here is the moral aspects of abortion. Giving out contraception to teenagers promotes sexual activity for younger and younger people. But is abortion just? Is the law on abortion just? Is it just to kill innocent human beings? I feel your first point not from the Pro-life stance but from your counter pro-choice position would be, "There's literally [a] difference between the unborn and a fully functioning adult." That would be the discriminatory and DEHUMANIZING language I spoke of during the debate. What it does is it minimizes one class of human beings, the unborn, to a lesser status of being than you or I (i.e., not as human). That "lesser status" was my criticism of Nazi Germany and I believe what most/all repressive regimes throughout the world do, to some extent. As I said, I lived and vacationed in South Africa. My childhood into my teens was spent in colonial Africa. I've witnessed racism and understand how human beings in these countries have been demonized and dehumanized by those in power. I also understand how after UDI in Zimbabwe the marginalized groups became the white Africans. My aunt was murdered and my uncle lost his farm and fled the country.

YOU: "Three common pro-life beliefs:
1. There's literally no difference between the unborn and a fully functioning adult.
2. Abortion is legally murder.
3. Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion."

Thank you.

1. There is a difference but not in kind but in the level of development. The unborn is a human being just like you are. Thus it is a moral issue when you kill innocent human beings regardless of their level of development.
2. In most cases, the unborn are intentionally killed. This brings up the issue of whether human beings are intrinsically valuable. If not then what does it matter if we kill or single out groups of human beings?
3. "Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion?"
What does that mean? I don't follow your line of reasoning. How can you have an abortion without first being pregnant?

RAGNAR: "Granted, some claimed pro-lifers consider a woman simply not being pregnant to be the same as her butchering someone in possession of a drivers licence, so to some it's rather simple..."

I'm having a hard time understanding your analogy.

I lost track of time. It was two and a half weeks ago.

Yes, I understood your point about Trump.

I think abortion is a touchy subject because many people rightly recognize the unborn as a human being and understand it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Thus, I personally think it is a coping mechanism, a way of justifying what should not be justified.

Thank you for the prayers! My sister's grandkids especially took it hard.

Thanks! I'll switch over to personal messaging to discuss the details.

Okay. Thank you. I will take you up on the offer. My sister just died last week so I will take a few more weeks before I engage in another debate but please discuss with me in private the scope of the terminology of the debate you would consider engaging in. I think a comparison is feasible and it is the most hotly contested issue, or perhaps even a debate on Roe V Wade as a just law, or perhaps on the intrinsic worth of human beings and what that means in matters of justice.

And, I might add, the woman who chose to end the unborns life hopefully would not treat the unborn as she would any born human being.

Thank you for the discussion! Your opinion and mental acumen are well-known on this forum and the previous one and in most subject areas I see this as so. I do disagree with you on abortion, however. That is why we hold two opposite views.

Is the comparison just? Is it true regarding what is being done? I care about justice. I care about what is done to the unborn. I do not believe justice is served with the pro-choice position. Do you believe all human beings should be treated equally under the law and is not the unborn an innocent human being? I think the wording of pro-choicers disguises this crucial factor. I struggled to get a clear-cut image of what the unborn was thought to be by the pro-choicer in all three debates. Even if it was acknowledged as being a human being and a personal being it was not treated as a human being should be treated and I am convinced the language reflected that.

Hi, bmdrocks21.

First, the comparisons between Trump and Hitler are largely unwarranted and fabricated, IMO, yet we could argue it. I can't shut down your argument until I hear it. I would not shut you down but confront you on your argument.

When discussing "should abortion be legal," as I pointed out, two or three things need to be considered.

1) What is the unborn?
2) If it is human are all human beings intrinsically valuable? If not, what is to stop us from discriminating against any human being or taking its life?
3) Are the laws just and justified?

To deal with unjust laws I picked the most extreme example I could think of and mirrored it with abortion. I showed how Nazi laws were gradually instituted because of the negative view presented of a group or groups of people to the culture. To get rid of or marginalize these groups the attitude of that society was changed through particular tools (words and word images) to influence the majority. Once desensitized, the discriminated and demonized groups could be done with whatever was desired with minimum moral outrage.

When you say, "first prove the prochoice position is devaluing humans," by proving they are human beings I believe I either did that not only with scientific arguments and quotes but also in a philosophic and moral way. In this current debate, my opponent did not challenge that biological connection directly, yet his words seemed to lessen what the unborn is in many statements, some I pointed out.

I understand what you are saying and I thank you for expressing it. Yes, I took the bull by the horns. I am direct that way. I lack subtly. I showed how, when laws are unjust bad things happen with the Nazis as my prime example. Both examples speak of a Holocaust and things I argue should not be done. The argument was shocking. But we are having the discussion. I think you recognize that devaluation was/is used by both groups since you stated it to some degree.

Do you think pro-choicers have justified taking the life of the unborn by advocating for "her body, her choice," or by arguing that abortion law, in most cases, is just?

Then the perception needs to be addressed. The perception in Nazi Germany was not addressed at that time sufficiently. Look what that caused. Is that not what is being done here to an extent. If prolifers try to educate people on how language, laws, and culture can discriminate against others and that is what is being done - discrimination - just like in Nazi Germany, we are presented as kooks or wrong in our thinking.

I'm telling people that what was done to the Jew in Nazi Germany is being done to the unborn via abortion. The Jew and the Slav, for many Nazis, were the "Untermenschen." By discrimination and dehumanization, innocent human beings are being killed. Is that not concerning? That does not mean I am calling people Nazis. No. I'm saying what is being done through language, laws, media, the arts, education to form a negative image of the unborn was the same tactic the Nazis used to change opinion about the Jews and others, and look at what happened. I used the Nazis to illustrate how unjust laws can be passed by such a culture of hatred or indifference. The culture of prochoice is indifferent to the unborn. You are saying it is not educating because people refuse to even consider the argument once the Nazis are mentioned. Then the problem is not with the argument but with those holding the view of dismissal. Thus the culture needs to be confronted on this issue instead of hiding it and ignoring it. It cannot be resolved until it is discussed.

In "Less than human," David Livingstone Smith chose to highlight three groups in his book. He notes the list of possible choices was great but because of the "historical significants" of these groups they have been "richly documented." Thus Smith believed they were "excellent paradigm cases" in examining the "core features of the dehumanizing process."

https://www.amazon.ca/Less-Than-Human-Enslave-Exterminate/dp/1250003830/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=less+than+human&qid=1583251601&s=books&sr=1-1 See p.6.

So, I could say that you and prochoicers are so focused on what I am saying that you miss how crucial this issue is. How will prochoicers engage in this discussion unless they are called to task? So the example is extreme, it is shocking, but so is taking the unborn's life, and in numbers so huge it surpasses what has ever been done before to one group of human beings that I know of. And again, in no way do I call them Nazis, let's be clear. What I do is show how what they do is what the Nazis did to make a group of human beings less than what they are. They use language, laws, and culture to desensitize the culture to what the unborn is, a human being. The unborn are not being treated like a human being deserves to be treated. It is a human atrocity like no other in numbers, yet prochoicers fail to acknowledge this in their trivialization of the unborn. They can't even agree that it is being denied a human being's most basic right, the right to life. How many times during these three debates I engaged in did my opponent lessen what the unborn was with words like "a clump of cells," a parasite or intruder, or not yet on the same level of humanity as born human beings because of its development? Does development make it less of a human being or another kind of being? If you go down that road then you could argue a newborn or toddler is less human and less of a human being than a teen or adult human being. You can start to separate human beings into groups with devalued worth. The classification can be used to discriminate against any group of human beings. Thus, we need to establish that this kind of pigeonholing is wrong, unjust.

Why would I not stay focused on it? It is the topic that both Ragnar and you chose to criticize as if it had no or little validity in the case against abortion? Why would you single it out other than to create a negative point of view as to its validity in its comparisons for those reading the debate? I remind those reading this that I believe the argument is valid.

The Nazi comparison seems to be a bias Ragnar, pro-choicers, and you hold against my argument, seeming almost like censorship to me. It seems taboo to bring what the Nazis did up in conjunction to abortion. Whether that is a true evaluation by me is perhaps another matter. According to you, it triggers pro-choicers from reading anything further once they come across it. They shut down the argument immediately at that point. Thus, they are not open but very narrow-minded on this subject. Why is that? Is it because the Reductio ad Hitlerum counter has been slung around like a propaganda tool? Although the point does not require the Nazis to be made known it is the one I used and I believe the Nazi comparison is valid and gives a very clear example of how language, laws, and culture can negatively affect the way people view particular groups of people. The Nazi example highlights something that is dreadfully wrong. Pro-lifers believe the killing of the unborn is dreadfully wrong also, yet the subject is continually glossed over and it always boils down to the woman's "right" to choose to kill her biological offspring used with bodily rights arguments as okay. So, the rights and value of the unborn are constantly diminished. The rights and values of the unborn are seldom mentioned in such debates by the pro-choice crowd except in a negative, harmful way to create a negative spin.

You say,

"So, when you ask, "Do you think we would be having this discussion now if I did not use such a morally repulsive example?", I agree. You're exactly right: we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, we might be discussing the validity of your argument about dehumanization and examining whether pro-choice language actually feeds into it."

You agree!

It seems like a roadblock pro-choicers have that bars them from evaluating the argument or immediately reacting biasedly to shut down the validity of the points. You commented without reading the full debate. One thing seems sure to me, you find the horror of what the Nazis did in taking innocent lives, yet no reaction to what pro-choicers are doing by taking innocent human lives. The thing that gets me is why do you think there is less validity to the Nazi examples in comparison with the pro-choice position in dehumanizing and devaluing human beings than other examples?

You said,

"I had thought you cared more about the substance of your argument rather than the comparison you're making."

So you think there is less substance in the argument once the unborn is mentioned in connection to the Nazis and what they did in creating a negative view of particular groups of human beings. Both examples point out it is wrong to kill innocent human beings because they are unwanted.

The issue at hand is the same regarding abortion and the Jews in one sense. Human beings in mass numbers are and were exterminated. The exploitation of such great numbers is also noted with other groups. American slavery, women, Rwanda, the Cultural Revolution, Soviet gulags and the Great Famine of 1921, North Korea, etc., as just some of the many examples that could have been used where language and laws cause(d) dehumanization and devaluation. But the Holocaust is perhaps the best-known example. Would the same moral outrage have been triggered to draw attention to the situation with those other examples? Should we use that moral outrage to draw attention to the plight? Is it the most effective tool to bring scrutiny and curiosity to this mare's nest? The reason many pro-lifers have this abortion debate is to draw attention to the wrong of what is happening. We believe the unborn are worth fighting for just like we believe these other groups were and are worth fighting for. So while the Nazis or Hitler are not required to make the point, they are perhaps the best-known example that could be cited.

You may disagree that it is an apt comparison but are your objections well-founded? Are your objections that other examples could have been equally effective founded - perhaps!

I am saying the arguments presented by pro-choicers are fundamentally dehumanizing. Not all human beings are being treated equally under the law. Not all human beings are looked upon with worth. Not all human beings are given the most basic of all human rights, the right to life. Language is used to shape the culture to a negative view of the unborn human being. Look at the Nazis to see what you are doing. Look at the numbers of aborted human beings. So, the Nazi example is used to say, don't let what happened with the Jews in Nazi Germany continue to happen to the unborn around the world. Let's stand up for justice. Let's not downplay what is going on here.

You continue to think, IMO, that comparing the plight of the unborn to the Nazis is not a good thing to do. How quickly will we forget history and do the same things over again? Do you think we would be having this discussion now if I did not use such a morally repulsive example? Do you think that pro-choicers would be aware of their devaluing and dehumanizing language if I tried to hide the issue more, or would the issue have been forgotten long ago with other examples? Do you think the argument would stick? So a jolt has been given, a reminder of what we are dealing with here - valuable, vulnerable human beings that need our mouth-piece to stop this atrocity.

Now, do you think the unborn are not human beings? Or if you think they are human beings then do you think they are being treated fairly and with equal justices as all innocent human beings deserve or should deserve? Do you think that some innocent human beings should not be treated with the same equality as others and then how is that just?