Murder By Pro-aborts?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1879890' date='May 31 2009, 11:11 PM']Well I wince in asking this because I'm almost sure I know what your "argument" is going to be but thanks to my morbid curiosity I must ask you to explain what you mean.[/quote]

I'd rather not repeat myself again. Why don't you just tell me what you think my argument is so I can tell you if you're right or wrong. I'm thinking you'll twist it but let's see.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1879700' date='May 31 2009, 09:50 PM']No. Unless you make the term so elastic as to render it almost totally meaningless and utterly analytically useless abortion cannot qualify as genocide.[/quote]

ridiculous.

[Hassan]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1880119' date='Jun 1 2009, 01:32 AM']ridiculous.[/quote]
Then how is abortion genocide?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1879762' date='May 31 2009, 10:09 PM']Be as intelectually vacuous as you care. I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone outside your own little choir with it though.[/quote]

You are being absolutely unreasonable and your bias is showing through very much for someone who seems to pride himself on his impartial attitudes toward everything.

And I don't know when the last time you were having a real-life conversation with someone about the nature of abortion, but I was doing it yesterday and this was brought up. It was taken very seriously (shocker, I guess to you). When you compare abortion to other forms of historical genocide the similarities are [url="http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html"]striking[/url].

In the historical genocides which are most often compared with abortion (holocaust, slavery) the personhood of the human being is always redefined to exclude the one intended victim class.

Both the genocide of slavery and that of the holocaust were framed in the language of "choice."

In all cases the victim class tends to be people who have what we want or get in our way.

Victim class also is also seen as a "disease" on society or as diseased themselves.

And in all cases it is claimed that the resources are inadequate to care for intended victim class if they are allowed to live.

All things that happened during the holocaust and slavery. Both situations true genocides.

All of these things also have happened in the reign of legalized abortion. Also, a genocide.

Your statements remind me of the fathers we encounter when sidewalk counseling. They don't want to hold the picture of what an abortion is. They don't even want to look at it. It might hit some "emotional buttons." They don't want to hold the little rubber baby that is of the exact size and resemblance of the 12 week old child in their girlfriend's womb they are about to abort... it might push some "emotional buttons." They don't want to hear the term "genocide" because it makes them think and it pushes some "emotional buttons."

Kind of like the woman who owns the clinic. She refuses to call it or hear it called a baby. It is a "fetus." It is not an abortion. It is a "termination." It is not genocide. It's ... well what [i]is[/i] it, Hassan?

Edited June 1, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Hassan]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1880147' date='Jun 1 2009, 02:07 AM']You are being absolutely unreasonable and your bias is showing through very much for someone who seems to pride himself on his impartial attitudes toward everything.[/quote]

I am biased, as are you. No one approaches any subject without some bias. That being said perhapse it is you whose undue bias is leadeing them to a unsustainable position.

just a thought.

[quote]And I don't know when the last time you were having a real-life conversation with someone about the nature of abortion, but I was doing it yesterday and this was brought up. It was taken very seriously (shocker, I guess to you). When you compare abortion to other forms of historical genocide the similarities are [url="http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html"]striking[/url].

In the historical genocides which are most often compared with abortion (holocaust, slavery) the personhood of the human being is always redefined to exclude the one intended victim class.

Both the genocide of slavery and that of the holocaust were framed in the language of "choice."

In all cases the victim class tends to be people who have what we want or get in our way.

Victim class also is also seen as a "disease" on society or as diseased themselves.

And in all cases it is claimed that the resources are inadequate to care for intended victim class if they are allowed to live.

All things that happened during the holocaust and slavery. Both situations true genocides.

All of these things also have happened in the reign of legalized abortion. Also, a genocide.[/quote]


Let's say all your points could be ascribed to both abortion and the Holocaust (How do you figure that slavery was genocide? Every aweful thing that happens to a group of people is not genocide) and other instances of genocide in the past. Simply finding correlations does not constitute a genocide. Genocide is given a very clear definition so it might be analytically useful .

You need to show how abortion fits the actual definition of genocide, which you can't do. There is not particular social class being targeted, the government is not coordinating actions to bring about the destruction of a particular class of individuals through abortion.

[quote]Your statements remind me of the fathers we encounter when sidewalk counseling. They don't want to hold the picture of what an abortion is. They don't even want to look at it. It might hit some "emotional buttons." They don't want to hold the little rubber baby that is of the exact size and resemblance of the 12 week old child in their girlfriend's womb they are about to abort... it might push some "emotional buttons." They don't want to hear the term "genocide" because it makes them think and it pushes some "emotional buttons."

Kind of like the woman who owns the clinic. She refuses to call it or hear it called a baby. It is a "fetus." It is not an abortion. It is a "termination." It is not genocide. It's ... well what [i]is[/i] it, Hassan?[/quote]

It's an abortion. The ending of the viability of a fetus. Call it a baby, insist it's murder, even if both points were granted it would not constitute genocide. Every horrid thing involving individuals dying is not genocide. It doesn't mean it doesn't matter, doesn't even mean that the contemporary instances of genocide are less severe. Genocide isin't some rank on the totem poll, it's just the name for a particular type of phenomena.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1880214' date='Jun 1 2009, 10:22 AM']I am biased, as are you. No one approaches any subject without some bias. That being said perhapse it is you whose undue bias is leadeing them to a unsustainable position.

just a thought.




Let's say all your points could be ascribed to both abortion and the Holocaust (How do you figure that slavery was genocide? Every aweful thing that happens to a group of people is not genocide) and other instances of genocide in the past. Simply finding correlations does not constitute a genocide. Genocide is given a very clear definition so it might be analytically useful .

You need to show how abortion fits the actual definition of genocide, which you can't do. There is not particular social class being targeted, the government is not coordinating actions to bring about the destruction of a particular class of individuals through abortion.



It's an abortion. The ending of the viability of a fetus. Call it a baby, insist it's murder, even if both points were granted it would not constitute genocide. Every horrid thing involving individuals dying is not genocide. It doesn't mean it doesn't matter, doesn't even mean that the contemporary instances of genocide are less severe. Genocide isin't some rank on the totem poll, it's just the name for a particular type of phenomena.[/quote]
The mass murder of people is genocide, so abortion is genocide.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1880214' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:22 AM']I am biased, as are you. No one approaches any subject without some bias. That being said perhapse it is you whose undue bias is leadeing them to a unsustainable position.

just a thought.[/quote]

You just always seem to put yourself out there like someone who takes no side and so should be heard out.

Is my bias undue? No.

You never did answer my question. Genocide is genocide. What do you call killing 50 million unborn babies in a matter of 36 years?

[quote]Let's say all your points could be ascribed to both abortion and the Holocaust[/quote]

Which they can.

[quote](How do you figure that slavery was genocide? Every aweful thing that happens to a group of people is not genocide) and other instances of genocide in the past.[/quote]

Hanging black people around every corner in the south is genocide. Terminating a group of people, a race.


[quote]Simply finding correlations does not constitute a genocide. Genocide is given a very clear definition so it might be analytically useful .[/quote]

What is your definition then? And how does this not apply?

[quote]You need to show how abortion fits the actual definition of genocide, which you can't do.[/quote]

50 million people. All around the same age. Dehumanized and then killed.

Genocide. A cultural group. A specific group of people.

[quote]There is not particular social class being targeted, the government is not coordinating actions to bring about the destruction of a particular class of individuals through abortion.[/quote]

The government has legalized and is allowing for the killing of millions of children every year. That is genocide.

[quote]It's an abortion. The ending of the viability of a fetus. Call it a baby, insist it's murder, even if both points were granted it would not constitute genocide.[/quote]

It does seeing as millions are being killed from a specific group.

[quote]Every horrid thing involving individuals dying is not genocide.[/quote]

They are not just dying. They are being murdered. Or what is the "analytically useful" phrase you would like to use?

[quote]It doesn't mean it doesn't matter, doesn't even mean that the contemporary instances of genocide are less severe. Genocide isin't some rank on the totem poll, it's just the name for a particular type of phenomena.[/quote]

Well abortion meets all the marks for genocide.

50 million have been killed from a specific group. That is genocide.

Edited June 2, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Jaime]

[quote]You need to show how abortion fits the actual definition of genocide, which you can't do. There is[b] not particular social class being targeted[/b], the government is not coordinating actions to bring about the destruction of a particular class of individuals through abortion.[/quote]

[quote]More than 44 million children have been killed by abortion—15 million of them were black children. Abortion has become the number one killer of black people in this country—killing more African Americans than accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths…COMBINED![/quote]
[url="http://www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com/?p=44"]http://www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com/?p=44[/url]


[quote]Sanger, a pioneering advocate for universal access to birth control for women, was also a proponent of “eugenics,” a philosophy that advocates social intervention, like birth control and abortion, for "improving" the hereditary traits of the human race. According to biographies written about Sanger, who was the sixth child of 11 eleven born to a rigid Catholic family in upstate New York, her support for this practice was focused on the “unfit” and the poor — slum dwellers — as they were called at the time, by making contraceptives more available there.

Over the years, comments made by Sanger about reproduction among the poor and minorities have led to her reputation as a racist and a belief that she wanted to “weed” out blacks from society. Planned Parenthood has disputed that caricature and has pointed out her supporters in the black community, including Martin Luther King Jr., and W.E.B DuBois. Nevertheless, Childress and others repeatedly invoked her name as a major force behind a century-long “genocide” on the black community.[/quote]


[quote]n 1937, Sanger became chairperson of the Birth Control Council of America and launched two publications, The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News. From 1939 to 1942, she was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role with the Negro Project,[/quote]

[Jaime]

I take it by Hassan's silence that he concedes his point. Either that or maybe he's comfortable with the genocide of african americans.

[Paddington]

Did black women/girls get pregnant at a higher rate during the listed timespan?

[Jaime]

what timespan? Since Roe V Wade?

[Paddington]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1881200' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:23 PM']what timespan? Since Roe V Wade?[/quote]

I guess so. The timespan in which 15 million of 44 million abortions were on black babies.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1880218' date='Jun 1 2009, 10:27 AM']The mass murder of people is genocide, so abortion is genocide.[/quote]

I get what you are saying but it is technically not correct. The mass murder of people is classified as homicide. The mass murder of *[b]a[/b]* people is genocide. Heinous as abortion is, it does not deliberately target a specific race, religion, ethnicity etc. We don't need to use the genocide terminology - homicide is strong enough and describes what is happening exactly

Edited June 2, 2009 by Maggie

[Jaime]

the rate of pregnancy is roughly the same as hispanic women and higher than white women

[Hassan]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1881187' date='Jun 2 2009, 12:11 PM']I take it by Hassan's silence that he concedes his point. Either that or maybe he's comfortable with the genocide of african americans.[/quote]


No. I'm staying away from participating on the debate board for a bit due to reasons you should be aware of.

Naturally I think your argument is asinine and I'm going to leave it at that.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1881239' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:32 PM']No. I'm staying away from participating on the debate board for a bit due to reasons you should be aware of.

Naturally I think your argument is asinine and I'm going to leave it at that.[/quote]


You think its asinine to list abortion as the #1 killer of african americans? Because statistics don't lie.

[KnightofChrist]

Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992, defines Genocide as: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, [b]or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable[/b]."

[Nihil Obstat]

Do we classify eugenics as genocide? I see some pretty clear parallels.
I don't really care what we call it as long as we recognize it for what it is, so for me this is a rather academic semantic argument...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1881214' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:35 PM']I get what you are saying but it is technically not correct. The mass murder of people is classified as homicide. The mass murder of *[b]a[/b]* people is genocide. Heinous as abortion is, it does not deliberately target a specific race, religion, ethnicity etc. We don't need to use the genocide terminology - homicide is strong enough and describes what is happening exactly [/quote]
Sure it does, it targets the black population in this country. Its genocide.

[MithLuin]

To answer the opening post, no, I don't think this murder was committed by a pro-abortionist. I suspect that the person was involved in the pro-life movement, though of course it could have been some other motivation unrelated to abortion.


Genocide requires some deliberation to guide the acts of murder. In other words, someone has to decide to systematically get rid of a certain group, and then take actions to do so. Abortion is an industry, so there are people out there promoting it, but can you really say that there is a group of people (not necessarily the gov't) who is seeking to kill as many unborn babies as possible? That sounds...off. Most people who are pro-abortion claim that they don't really want it to happen, they just want it to be available, if needed. Women who choose to have an abortion (that is, after all, the factor selecting which babies get aborted) are not part of any organized group, and have not so much in common with one another.

No one likes the word genocide, and there are those who will argue that what happened in Rwanda was not a genocide...it was 'just' a civil war. But outside observers can generally tell the difference.

Abortion is many horrible things, and I think it does bear comparison to both the Holocaust and slavery. But I wouldn't call it a genocide because of the lack of intentionality in those carrying it out.