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
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.
Round 1
I want to express my thanks to Whiteflame for engaging with this sensitive subject.
My purpose is to reasonably demonstrate how the Pro-choice position is comparable to what the Nazis did. It brings attention to injustice. As stated in the introduction,
"Pro-choice advocates are dehumanizing the unborn, and this dehumanization is comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews."
Whiteflame's purpose is to show the comparison is not valid. ("I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison.")
To demonstrate my position, I will tackle the debate as follows:
Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - Show how the language used by pro-choicers I have debated, dehumanize and diminish the worth of the unborn.
Part 3 - Show a comparison between the Pro-choice and the Nazi position is valid. This section will be subdivided into three fields of application,
1) Language,
a) Animal,
b) Non-human, subhuman, not fully human, non-person,
c) Parasite, intruder, unwanted,
d) Disease, virus, contagion, waste product,
e) Objectification.
2) Law,
3) Culture - Education, Media, Arts and Entertainment.
***
Introduction
The aim is to show how the Nazi and pro-choice positions are comparable. The concept of dehumanization will be defined, explored, and then demonstrated as taking place.
Dehumanization is a way of thinking of and/or treating people/humans as less than what they are - human beings. It thinks of them as subhuman, inhuman, non-human, non-persons, not fully human, or not quite as human. "Taking away a person's individuality isn't the same as obliterating their humanity. An anonymous human is still a human." p. 27 [1]. Dehumanization can take place in several ways, such as through the language of objectification, likening human beings to animals, diseases, viruses, or contagion. These unfavourable terms degrade human beings by making them less than what they are existentially or by nature. Once the culture grabs hold of these dehumanizing terms through media exposure, education, arts and entertainment, and other means, laws often pass to segregate and marginalize individuals, a group, or groups of human beings.
David Livingstone Smith said, "Doing violence to people doesn't make them subhuman, but conceiving of people as subhuman often makes them objects of violence and victims of degradation...dehumanization is something psychological...It is an attitude - a way of thinking about people - whereas harming them is a form of behavior, a kind of doing rather than a kind of thinking." p. 28. [1]
Thinking often leads to doing.
Dehumanization can be literally acted out through cruel treatment or thought metaphorically. The latter, more subtle examples, can consider a person or group as an animal, objectify them, or employ rhetoric or humour negatively to demean them. When poking fun of an individual or group is malicious or becomes ingrained, an attitude of "moral disengagement" develops that degrades and misrepresents. The person or group is no longer looked at in the same light as other human beings.
Some sites break the dehumanization process into two kinds,
"Denying uniquely human attributes to others represents them as animal-like, and denying human nature to others represents them as objects or automata." [2]
"Animalistic dehumanization means denying other people essential qualities that separate men from animals, such as morality and culture." p.1 [3]
"Mechanistic dehumanization means denying to other people those qualities that separate men from machines, such as interpersonal warmth, emotion and individual agency." p.1 [3]
"Dehumanization allows people to suppress emotions that they would normally feel towards other human beings," and "has often been linked to genocide and war." p. 2 [3]
"Dehumanization is arguably a defining feature of the most brutal acts of human violence, such as saturation bombardment of civilian populations, terrorist attacks on urban centres, intense battlefield combat, and genocide." [4]
The article [3] goes on to describe 'infrahumanization' (p.2), a subtler form of dehumanization where lesser human characteristics are ascribed to the 'outward' group. That is to say, "people attribute less human characteristics to the outgroup, rather than to deny them" their complete humanity, sometimes seen in an 'us' versus 'them' mentality. These lesser attributes of humanity are portrayed in denying personhood, denying legal status under the law, denying identity as fully human beings, or downgrade them to mere objects while still calling them human, and is a common occurrence. "Power can increase dehumanization" exampled through power politics where those in control use the legal system to justify their actions through unjust laws.
Part 2
I will take examples of either dehumanization or infrahumanization from two of my three debates. The voting is still ongoing in the third.
Debate 1 - Con, when pressed, identified the unborn as a human being, stressed the importance of treating all human beings equally, then stripped it of those rights and equality throughout the debate, making it less than what it is. Con states,
"...human rights can only be fully realized when rights apply to everyone equally...human rights applied discriminately is an attack on human dignity. We extend rights to other humans not because they are better than us, but because they are equal to us." (R2)
"For someone to be an intruder they must enter a place where they are not wanted...An unwanted pregnancy is analogous to these situations as there is an intruder that potentially threatens life...It does not matter if this intruder is considered a group of cells, viable/inviable fetus, human being, and/or a person...it cannot be legitimately argued a fetus is a person (an individual human) while it exists as an extension of a person's body. In short, a fetus is, at best, a potential person while inside of (and dependent on) the body and will of another." (R2)
This language continually misguides and devalues the equality and rights of the unborn, as underlined.
Debate 2 - Con states of the unborn,
"Some collection of cells which have not been born...I disagree...that every fertilized embryo in a lab is a living human being “equal in value” and significance to all human beings...Humans...can have a massively varied value...unwilling pregnancies...highly analogous to slavery...Citizens of the USA enjoy protections...“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”...safe legal access to abortion improves a country..." (R2)
The underlined diminishes in value and/or degrades human characteristics in the unborn.
Part 3
1) Language
Language, as a tool of propaganda, influences the way we think, often using hate, indifference, or fear, to villanize a group.
a) Animal portrayals (a lower level of existence metaphor)
Pro-choice - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan compared a three-week embryo to "a segmented worm." At just under five-weeks, it resembles "the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian," its tail "rather like a newt or a tadpole." In the sixth week, it is compared to a "reptilian face." By the end of the seventh week, it is somewhere between a "mammalian" and "piglike" face. By the end of the eighth week, the face "resembles that of a primate," [9] somewhat echoing Ernst Haeckel's discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory. [10]
Hitler - "The Jew is only united when a common danger forces him to be..., the united people turns into a horde of rats, fighting bloodily among themselves...His blood-sucking tyranny..." [5] "...like a maggot in a rotting body." [6]
Nazis - The Eternal Jew, a Nazi propaganda film opening November 29th, 1940, "utilizes a montage that juxtaposes these images of ghetto Jews with images of rats to draw an analogy between the migration of Jews from Eastern Europe with the migration of rats." [11] One caption in the film said, "Where rats turn up, they spread diseases and carry extermination into the land. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel, they travel in large packs, exactly the way the Jews infect the races of the world." [12]
b) Non-human, subhuman, not fully human (less than)
Pro-choice - Magret Sanger (Human Conservation And Birth Control) said, "a policy -- of race conservation is leading us, so that we plan to stem the tide of production of the unfit and try to turn it in the right direction." [7] "Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." [8]
"The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human;...An embryo is a potential human being." [17]
The pro-choice 'unfit' are unborn human beings, such as the unwanted, or those with genetic deformities such as Down syndrome.
Hitler - "...higher development of man, is not present in him and never was present...every court has its 'court Jew'-as the monsters are called...the inferior being-and this is the Jew." [5] "I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity." [6]
c) Parasites (intruders, unwanted, sponges, leeches, blood-suckers, "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species," [13] feeding off the host)
Pro-choice - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote that after the 'fertilized egg' [i.e., a human being] attaches to the uterus it becomes "a kind of parasite..." [9]
"University of California San Diego Professor Pascal Gagnuex told students that fetuses are a 'legitimate parasite.'" [14]
"Unborn Babies Are Tapeworms" [15]
Intruder analogy - The Violinist Analogy by Judith Jarvis Thomson [16]
Hitler - "...culture...is ruined in his hands....only and always a parasite in the body of other peoples...The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states...carry on his existence as a parasite...the outward racial difference between himself and the host people is too great...A true blood-sucker that attaches himself to the body of the unhappy people..." [5]
Nazis - Nazi officer Alfred Rosenburg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, p. 319 - "Parasitism...The Jew - the Pharisee, the parasite...Jewish parasite..." p. 322 - "parasitic devaluation...the parasite...Jewish parasitism...Jewish infection..."
2) Laws
Laws change what is permissible.
Roe v. Wade changed the paradigm of abortion that rapidly led to a devaluation of the unborn. It was an unjust law, denying the unborn personhood, never establishing when personhood began, misrepresented the historical view of the personhood of the unborn, lifted the protection of the unborn, exchanged it in favour of the "woman's rights," and thought only "potential life was involved." [21]
The Nazis passed numerous laws that discriminated against members and groups of society. Two such laws in 1933, the "Malicious Practices Act," [18] which outlawed opposition to their policies, and the "Enabling Act," [19] which allowed Hitler to limit civil liberties and persecute enemies of the State, legalizing his dictatorship. In 1935, "Two distinct laws passed in Nazi Germany in September 1935 are known collectively as the Nuremberg Laws: the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor...the legal framework for the systematic persecution of Jews in Germany." [20]
Unjust laws were accepted in both cases to warrant the taking of massive human life.
3) Culture
Education, Media, Arts and Entertainment will be considered briefly in R2, as used by Nazis and Pro-choice to propagandize and indoctrinate people.
Before I begin talking about the substance of this debate, I
think it’s important to clarify what this debate is not.
OV1: This is not a debate about whether abortion is moral. The focus is on the comparison between the arguments of the pro-choice movement and the Nazi Reich. Voters, you can continue to believe that abortion should be banned and still disagree with the comparison. Given this, any point we make regarding the morality or justness of an argument or a law that supports or validates abortion is off topic.
OV2: This debate does not require defense or support of arguments made by individual pro-choice advocates or even statements made by many of them. Saying that these points represent the entire pro-choice position is a hasty generalization, as our personal experiences and a few cherry-picked quotes are not sufficient evidence. The definition of pro-choice that we agreed to is the sole representation for pro-choice views: “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.” I may choose to defend more specific arguments made in support of this, but I am not required to do so in order to affirm this resolution.
OV3: This debate is not solely a factual comparison between pro-choice arguments and Nazi arguments. Fundamental to this debate is an understanding of what “should not” means in this context. It is both an expression of accuracy and an indication of obligation or duty. So, what would someone who supports the comparison be obliged to do? I will argue that they are obliged to meet two thresholds: convey a greater understanding of the issue, and/or induce improved discussion of the issue (in this case, abortion). Note that these are both entirely distinct from the accuracy of the comparison, and thus precede any discussion of whether the comparison itself is apt. Thus, this is an a priori issue.
So, let’s begin by determining whether the comparison meets these thresholds.
Does it effectively convey a greater understanding of abortion?
No. Including specifics of Nazi atrocities (as Con has in a previous debate [1]) fosters no greater understanding of abortion and the rights involved. Analogies like this are usually meant to simplify complex issues, yet analysis of the pro-choice position is inherently basic and more easily understood than a full timeline spanning a decade in Nazi Germany. If Con wants to convey the importance of these lives by comparison to others, then he could easily do so without invoking a fascist regime, and that inefficiency alone is enough to dismiss the comparison.
Does induce improved discussion of abortion?
Again, no. This debate would not exist if this was not true because there would be no reason to focus on it at the expense of discussing the morality or legality of abortion. To understand this, though, we need to talk a fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerium. While it is often misunderstood, this fallacy exists because the comparison to Hitler and the Nazi regime is so common that it required a separate designation. Essentially, the basis for the fallacy is that an argument reduces a given position to cherry-picked elements, drawing attention away from its current meaning and context. In this case, it’s the idea of guilt by association: arguments made by pro-choice people are in some ways similar to those made in the past by this terrible group, and because that group is terrible, so is the pro-choice position as a whole.
This is why comparisons to Hitler as a whole are so prone to error: cherry-picking portions of two much larger and more complex ideologies is inherently flawed. The comparison trivializes both the acts of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis and the importance of the mother and her access to basic bodily autonomy. That perceived triviality incites those who are pro-choice (particularly if they’re Jewish and thus have personal connections to the Holocaust) to anger, which inherently runs contrary to rational discussion. Abortion is, itself, a heated issue. Contributing to the frustrations that plague this topic by inciting the other side is not conducive to any discussion or debate because it detracts from any rational discussion of abortion. If an argument detracts from the debate, or pushes others away from the debate, then it should be discarded. In fact, Con has already stated what his purpose is in presenting these points: to trigger moral outrage [2]. So, what makes this comparison outrageous? The comparison is inherently provocative, specifically aimed to paint a swastika over the pro-choice position. While Con will almost certainly argue that he’s not calling pro-choice people Nazis, taking the stance that their positions are comparable without any effort to distinguish the two demonstrates an effort to equate the two. Unsurprisingly, that induces anger and puts the attention on the comparison and has for a long time.[3]
But it’s not just the pro-choice response that’s worrisome, as this kind of language also inflames those who see it as a moral outrage: if your opponents behave outrageously, then that justifies outrageous responses, which many have been incited to commit.[4-6] The perpetuation of this argument leads to further drastic efforts from pro-life extremists and shuts down discussion still further.
Taking this another step back, this kind of comparison also does a disservice to both historical understanding of the Nazis and to our understanding of pro-choice viewpoints. It’s an attempt to obfuscate any further understanding of the Nazis, as the comparison breaks down with even the slightest effort to do so and reduces the entire pro-choice position to a minority of arguments. Even if we assume no negative response to this, these kinds of comparison “dumb down our political discourse, cheapen the actual realities of the past, and rob us of the opportunity to genuinely understand and learn from the past.”[7]
Taking one final step back, the comparison to Hitler is inherently fraught with drama. There’s a reason that Godwin’s Law exists: almost every position gets a similar comparison, eventually, including the pro-life movement.[8, 9] It may even be more absurd in those cases, but these faulty comparisons taint any efforts to use these comparisons, to the point that every such comparison automatically dismissed as frivolous.[10] This means that any validity is inconsequential, as the comparison itself will be dismissed solely because it exists.
With that, let’s get down to the accuracy of Con’s position. I’m going to cover some substantial discrepancies between Nazi-borne dehumanization and the pro-choice position. I’ll need to start with an overview.
The Importance of Context
It is impossible to focus on one small aspect of a comparison without dredging up the context. You do not invoke a group like the Nazis without eliciting responses to many of the heinous acts the Nazis partook in because the comparison doesn’t end at a few quotes. Con clearly recognizes this: in his previous debate, Con spent over half of his opening round providing extensive context on the history of Nazi Germany.[1] He wouldn’t have bothered if he felt that we could focus on a few quotes taken out of that context. The comparison is meant to establish a link between the pro-choice position and Nazi Germany that goes much deeper than a few quotes.
Thus, the goal is to contaminate the pro-choice position with the context of Nazi Germany; however, to do so, we must entirely ignore any comparisons of their contexts. The same mistake is made by countless others who have compared various world leaders to Hitler. They select a set of policies, traits, quotes and other information from said leaders, and compare them with Hitler to evoke the horrors of the Holocaust and turn the public against said leaders. Consistently, each of these comparisons barely scratches the surface, and closer inspection renders them absurd.[11] So, let’s focus on the contexts in this comparison.
The Physical
Unlike a Jew, a pregnancy is, inherently, causes a variety of physical effect on the mother. Even if we ignore every complication that can occur (of which there are many [12]), pregnancy requires an expectant mother to carry a child to term for nine months and give birth to that child. These all take a physical toll on the mother, which abortion can cease.
Now, Con will almost certainly argue that this toll is justified. However, referring back to my OV1, these arguments are non sequiturs in this debate. The physical toll is utterly incomparable to anything experienced by the Nazis, who are functioning as corollaries to pro-choice mothers in this comparison. It is fundamental and out of necessity that the sustainment of a pregnancy against a mother’s will reduces her capacity for self-ownership and self-preservation. So, whereas the survival of Jews in 1930’s Germany was never at odds with the rights of other German people, the survival of an unborn child is directly at odds with the rights of the mother.
Genocide vs. Choice
The take-away from this comparison is that the aims of the pro-choice movement and the Nazis are similar: both show disdain for the value of some subset of human lives and want to see them gone. However, this is dramatically oversimplified. Pro-choice people do not want all unborn babies to die; to do so would end humanity, making it inherently self-defeating, and runs directly contrary to the word “choice.” Pro-choice people argue that expectant mothers should have the individual choice to keep or abort the unborn. Meanwhile, the Nazis engineered a systematic, coercive project of racial purity with the goal of utterly erasing Jews, Romani, invalids, and other groups that did not fit their view of what a perfect specimen was. They wanted these populations to disappear, no choice involved.
This establishes a clear distinction between the Nazis and the pro-choice position, as they are clearly seeking extremely different outcomes. Con’s argument fails to consider one basic fact: pro-choice people still having children. Clearly, the pro-choice view still attributes substantial, if unequal, value to the unborn. Moreover, pro-choice people automatically afford those humans full rights when they become viable. Compare that with the Nazis: those they killed received nothing but negative value, and there was no opportunity to obtain rights of any kind.
Conclusion
The comparison between the pro-choice position and Nazi rhetoric and actions is inherently reductive. Context matters, and while it is theoretically possible to compare elements of each, the reality is that it can’t be done without involving their contexts. Ignoring context undercuts any comparison between the two, yet the whole basis for the comparison relies on context to be effective. As such, Con is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He can’t have it both ways, which offers him no opportunities to oppose the resolution.
1. https://bit.ly/2ysiVhQ
2. https://bit.ly/3anWO9J
3. https://bit.ly/3ctPA5m
4. https://bit.ly/2XOjuNv
5. https://bit.ly/2VL9Us8
6. https://nyti.ms/2RSTM6R
7. https://bit.ly/2VIy2vr
8. https://bit.ly/34ONL07
9. https://bit.ly/34P891f
10. https://bit.ly/3ak2dyA
11. https://bit.ly/2KeKXjw
12. https://bit.ly/2XOZsCw
OV1: This is not a debate about whether abortion is moral. The focus is on the comparison between the arguments of the pro-choice movement and the Nazi Reich. Voters, you can continue to believe that abortion should be banned and still disagree with the comparison. Given this, any point we make regarding the morality or justness of an argument or a law that supports or validates abortion is off topic.
OV2: This debate does not require defense or support of arguments made by individual pro-choice advocates or even statements made by many of them. Saying that these points represent the entire pro-choice position is a hasty generalization, as our personal experiences and a few cherry-picked quotes are not sufficient evidence. The definition of pro-choice that we agreed to is the sole representation for pro-choice views: “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.” I may choose to defend more specific arguments made in support of this, but I am not required to do so in order to affirm this resolution.
OV3: This debate is not solely a factual comparison between pro-choice arguments and Nazi arguments. Fundamental to this debate is an understanding of what “should not” means in this context. It is both an expression of accuracy and an indication of obligation or duty. So, what would someone who supports the comparison be obliged to do? I will argue that they are obliged to meet two thresholds: convey a greater understanding of the issue, and/or induce improved discussion of the issue (in this case, abortion). Note that these are both entirely distinct from the accuracy of the comparison, and thus precede any discussion of whether the comparison itself is apt. Thus, this is an a priori issue.
So, let’s begin by determining whether the comparison meets these thresholds.
Does it effectively convey a greater understanding of abortion?
No. Including specifics of Nazi atrocities (as Con has in a previous debate [1]) fosters no greater understanding of abortion and the rights involved. Analogies like this are usually meant to simplify complex issues, yet analysis of the pro-choice position is inherently basic and more easily understood than a full timeline spanning a decade in Nazi Germany. If Con wants to convey the importance of these lives by comparison to others, then he could easily do so without invoking a fascist regime, and that inefficiency alone is enough to dismiss the comparison.
Does induce improved discussion of abortion?
Again, no. This debate would not exist if this was not true because there would be no reason to focus on it at the expense of discussing the morality or legality of abortion. To understand this, though, we need to talk a fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerium. While it is often misunderstood, this fallacy exists because the comparison to Hitler and the Nazi regime is so common that it required a separate designation. Essentially, the basis for the fallacy is that an argument reduces a given position to cherry-picked elements, drawing attention away from its current meaning and context. In this case, it’s the idea of guilt by association: arguments made by pro-choice people are in some ways similar to those made in the past by this terrible group, and because that group is terrible, so is the pro-choice position as a whole.
This is why comparisons to Hitler as a whole are so prone to error: cherry-picking portions of two much larger and more complex ideologies is inherently flawed. The comparison trivializes both the acts of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis and the importance of the mother and her access to basic bodily autonomy. That perceived triviality incites those who are pro-choice (particularly if they’re Jewish and thus have personal connections to the Holocaust) to anger, which inherently runs contrary to rational discussion. Abortion is, itself, a heated issue. Contributing to the frustrations that plague this topic by inciting the other side is not conducive to any discussion or debate because it detracts from any rational discussion of abortion. If an argument detracts from the debate, or pushes others away from the debate, then it should be discarded. In fact, Con has already stated what his purpose is in presenting these points: to trigger moral outrage [2]. So, what makes this comparison outrageous? The comparison is inherently provocative, specifically aimed to paint a swastika over the pro-choice position. While Con will almost certainly argue that he’s not calling pro-choice people Nazis, taking the stance that their positions are comparable without any effort to distinguish the two demonstrates an effort to equate the two. Unsurprisingly, that induces anger and puts the attention on the comparison and has for a long time.[3]
But it’s not just the pro-choice response that’s worrisome, as this kind of language also inflames those who see it as a moral outrage: if your opponents behave outrageously, then that justifies outrageous responses, which many have been incited to commit.[4-6] The perpetuation of this argument leads to further drastic efforts from pro-life extremists and shuts down discussion still further.
Taking this another step back, this kind of comparison also does a disservice to both historical understanding of the Nazis and to our understanding of pro-choice viewpoints. It’s an attempt to obfuscate any further understanding of the Nazis, as the comparison breaks down with even the slightest effort to do so and reduces the entire pro-choice position to a minority of arguments. Even if we assume no negative response to this, these kinds of comparison “dumb down our political discourse, cheapen the actual realities of the past, and rob us of the opportunity to genuinely understand and learn from the past.”[7]
Taking one final step back, the comparison to Hitler is inherently fraught with drama. There’s a reason that Godwin’s Law exists: almost every position gets a similar comparison, eventually, including the pro-life movement.[8, 9] It may even be more absurd in those cases, but these faulty comparisons taint any efforts to use these comparisons, to the point that every such comparison automatically dismissed as frivolous.[10] This means that any validity is inconsequential, as the comparison itself will be dismissed solely because it exists.
With that, let’s get down to the accuracy of Con’s position. I’m going to cover some substantial discrepancies between Nazi-borne dehumanization and the pro-choice position. I’ll need to start with an overview.
The Importance of Context
It is impossible to focus on one small aspect of a comparison without dredging up the context. You do not invoke a group like the Nazis without eliciting responses to many of the heinous acts the Nazis partook in because the comparison doesn’t end at a few quotes. Con clearly recognizes this: in his previous debate, Con spent over half of his opening round providing extensive context on the history of Nazi Germany.[1] He wouldn’t have bothered if he felt that we could focus on a few quotes taken out of that context. The comparison is meant to establish a link between the pro-choice position and Nazi Germany that goes much deeper than a few quotes.
Thus, the goal is to contaminate the pro-choice position with the context of Nazi Germany; however, to do so, we must entirely ignore any comparisons of their contexts. The same mistake is made by countless others who have compared various world leaders to Hitler. They select a set of policies, traits, quotes and other information from said leaders, and compare them with Hitler to evoke the horrors of the Holocaust and turn the public against said leaders. Consistently, each of these comparisons barely scratches the surface, and closer inspection renders them absurd.[11] So, let’s focus on the contexts in this comparison.
The Physical
Unlike a Jew, a pregnancy is, inherently, causes a variety of physical effect on the mother. Even if we ignore every complication that can occur (of which there are many [12]), pregnancy requires an expectant mother to carry a child to term for nine months and give birth to that child. These all take a physical toll on the mother, which abortion can cease.
Now, Con will almost certainly argue that this toll is justified. However, referring back to my OV1, these arguments are non sequiturs in this debate. The physical toll is utterly incomparable to anything experienced by the Nazis, who are functioning as corollaries to pro-choice mothers in this comparison. It is fundamental and out of necessity that the sustainment of a pregnancy against a mother’s will reduces her capacity for self-ownership and self-preservation. So, whereas the survival of Jews in 1930’s Germany was never at odds with the rights of other German people, the survival of an unborn child is directly at odds with the rights of the mother.
Genocide vs. Choice
The take-away from this comparison is that the aims of the pro-choice movement and the Nazis are similar: both show disdain for the value of some subset of human lives and want to see them gone. However, this is dramatically oversimplified. Pro-choice people do not want all unborn babies to die; to do so would end humanity, making it inherently self-defeating, and runs directly contrary to the word “choice.” Pro-choice people argue that expectant mothers should have the individual choice to keep or abort the unborn. Meanwhile, the Nazis engineered a systematic, coercive project of racial purity with the goal of utterly erasing Jews, Romani, invalids, and other groups that did not fit their view of what a perfect specimen was. They wanted these populations to disappear, no choice involved.
This establishes a clear distinction between the Nazis and the pro-choice position, as they are clearly seeking extremely different outcomes. Con’s argument fails to consider one basic fact: pro-choice people still having children. Clearly, the pro-choice view still attributes substantial, if unequal, value to the unborn. Moreover, pro-choice people automatically afford those humans full rights when they become viable. Compare that with the Nazis: those they killed received nothing but negative value, and there was no opportunity to obtain rights of any kind.
Conclusion
The comparison between the pro-choice position and Nazi rhetoric and actions is inherently reductive. Context matters, and while it is theoretically possible to compare elements of each, the reality is that it can’t be done without involving their contexts. Ignoring context undercuts any comparison between the two, yet the whole basis for the comparison relies on context to be effective. As such, Con is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He can’t have it both ways, which offers him no opportunities to oppose the resolution.
1. https://bit.ly/2ysiVhQ
2. https://bit.ly/3anWO9J
3. https://bit.ly/3ctPA5m
4. https://bit.ly/2XOjuNv
5. https://bit.ly/2VL9Us8
6. https://nyti.ms/2RSTM6R
7. https://bit.ly/2VIy2vr
8. https://bit.ly/34ONL07
9. https://bit.ly/34P891f
10. https://bit.ly/3ak2dyA
11. https://bit.ly/2KeKXjw
12. https://bit.ly/2XOZsCw
Round 2
1) Language
The devastating effects of dehumanizing negative labels desensitize our thinking about human beings. Thus, I framed my comparison in terms of dehumanizing words and traits between two groups in areas of 1) language, 2) law, and 3) cultural references. Why choose to compare? It highlights the desensitization of injustice taking place. The contention is that common dehumanizing language, and then actions are used frequently by both groups, the Nazis and Pro-choice advocates. The allegation is such negative words change the cultural paradigm regarding the identified groups, the Jew, the unborn. What happened in Nazi Germany concerning the Jews is happening with the Pro-choice woman's right to choose. The unborn is the silent, forgotten human victim and group.
d) Disease, Virus, Contagion, Waste product,
Hitler - "He is...a sponger who like a noxious bacillus...spreading...his existence is as bad as the plague...the eternal blood-sucker..." [1]
Hitler - "This was pestilence, spiritual pestilence, worse than the Black Death of olden times,...splashing his filth in the face of humanity." [1]
Pro-choice - "It’s medical waste and it goes into an incinerator…" [2] "considered to be biological waste,...placed in special waste bags that were sent for incineration." [3] "Unwanted Pregnancy: Sexually Transmitted Disease." [4]
2) Law
Hitler legislated the Jew out of existence, as have the pro-choice movement to an extent via the woman's whim/choice.
3) Culture - Education, Media, Arts and Entertainment.
Hitler on propaganda - "When I entered the German Labour Party [1921] I at once took charge of the propaganda, believing this branch to be far the most important for the time being...The propagandist inculcates his doctrine among the masses, with the idea of preparing them for the time when this doctrine will triumph,...The final triumph of a doctrine will be made all the easier if the propagandist has 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,..." [5]
***
Apply Hitler's ideas to our culture in examining pro-choice educational indoctrination. The framing and rhetoric of an issue become essential to its acceptance through the education system. The Federalist gives multiple examples, abortion being one, in which PC liberal ideas get implanted. Speaking against the PC culture is taboo and shunned. "[G]lossing over the moral weight that comes with deliberately choosing to end lives is fundamentally dishonest." "Presenting the existence of another human being as some...innocuous consumer choice...is reprehensible," yet accepted. [6]
Note: "Morally weighing" the issue might revolve around,
1) Whether all human beings are intrinsically valuable,
2) Equal justice under the law/justice equally applied.
3) Do personal liberties have limits?
A view counter to culture held by students gets ridiculed, even shouted down. On college and university campuses, pro-life lecturers get heckled, some threatened with bodily harm, as noted by Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins, in identifying "nine trends" to shut down free speech. [7] [8]
***
Rebuttal
OV 1:
This is not a debate about whether abortion is moral...Voters, you can continue to believe that abortion should be banned and still disagree with the comparison. Given this, any point we make regarding the morality or justness of an argument or a law that supports or validates abortion is off topic.
Dehumanization is a moral issue. Comparing the results of the dehumanization of the Jews and the unborn is justified, and your point is not given.
1) The holocaust death tolls are staggering to these two groups.
2) The treatment of both groups of human beings is not equal to others.
3) Both groups are denied basic liberties of life upon the determination of others.
The comparison is on topic.
The focus is on the comparison between the arguments of the pro-choice movement and the Nazi Reich.
The arguments focus is on specific comparisons between these two groups regarding dehumanization and discrimination injustices.
Voter, here is that focus (see Description):
Description:
1) "My position is that Pro-choice advocates are dehumanizing the unborn, and this dehumanization is comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews."
2) "My Pro-life position is that even if the Nazi example is misconstrued and [ignored], the argument still needs to be made to highlight an injustice that is taking place."
OV2:
This debate does not require defence or support of arguments made by individual pro-choice advocates or even statements made by many of them.
While what individual pro-choicers may say differs, the overall group-think pattern is of degradation and devaluation of a group of human beings through language, laws, and culture. Thus, there is a comparison with the language used and the intent behind it. Both the Nazis and Pro-choicers dehumanize vast numbers of human beings to death. Pro tries to lessen this comparison and impact by the charge of "reductio ad Hitlerium," and "Godwin's Law." Granted, these are commonly used and valid fallacies, but is that happening here? This comparison simply shows how dehumanization in both cultures takes place. The Nazi example was used because it is so well documented. This process of injustice and inequality also takes place with the unborn human being.
Saying that these points represent the entire pro-choice position is a hasty generalization, as our personal experiences and a few cherry-picked quotes are not sufficient evidence.
I'm not saying every pro-choicer is saying precisely the same thing, but the mindset does not see the unborn with the same worth it sees the woman.
OV3:
Fundamental to this debate is an understanding of what "should not" means in this context...an expression of accuracy and an indication of obligation or duty.
"Should not" is also a moral imperative.
Pros "two thresholds" of valid comparison:
1)
[C]onvey a greater understanding of abortion?
Pro charges my argument fails because it gives
"no greater understanding of abortion and the rights involved."
WRONG. It shows how language, laws, and culture can adversely sway a society into adopting unjust "rights"/practices and dehumanizing the unborn just like the Jew.
He also charges using a "fascist regime" is "enough to dismiss the comparison."
That dismissal is an unwarranted assumption or begging the question caused by ideological bias. While other baselines could have been used, the Nazi example is perhaps the most brutally documented, other than abortion, in the numbers of human beings killed through dehumanization and injustice. My claims evidence the same techniques and tools are used in both cases. [9]
2)
Does induce improved discussion of abortion?
The answer is yes, it does. It makes people aware of similar injustices, the dehumanization and inequality taking place with the unborn. There is guilt by both parties.
The comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany illustrate that negative language adversely affects human groups when society, in general, accepts the devaluation. [9]
arguments...because that group is terrible, so is the pro-choice position as a whole.
Ordinary people who associate with a particular belief can do terrible things. Dehumanizing, then taking the innocent life of another is such a terrible thing because it is unjust.
The comparison trivializes both the acts of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis and the importance of the mother and her access to basic bodily autonomy.
1. Pro trivializes the greatest (in number) holocaust to date by ignoring it. Since Roe V. Wade, approximately 1.6 billion unborn lives lost. [10] [11]
2. What about the bodily autonomy of the unborn? It is forgotten. It has a body too. There are two bodies involved. Pro only recognizes the one while devaluing or lessening the worth of the other (infrahumanization - see R1/Introduction).
If an argument detracts from the debate or pushes others away from the debate, then it should be discarded.
This is two-sided, not just one. Calling a human being an animal, parasite, germ, disease, contagion, less than, subhuman, non-human, group of cells, intruder, as done to the unborn is the other side of the coin. Pros paragraph also uses emotive, heated, loaded language to seed his desired mindset to the Voter with words such as "anger," "inciting," "not conducive," "detracts from any rational discussion," "to trigger moral outrage," "outrageous," "provocative," "aimed to paint a swastika," "induces anger," as examples.
his purpose is in presenting these points: to trigger moral outrage
Anyone who has witnessed the moral atrocities of Auschwitz who is not morally outraged misunderstands what was done there in dehumanizing a group of human beings, as the citation points out. [12] Killing innocent human beings should be a moral outrage, yet Pro-choicers are silent about the side-lined unborn in the discussion. "The woman...her rights...her choice..."
The Importance of Context
The common contextual link between pro-choice and the Nazis is dehumanization and injustice. Innocent human beings are devalued and then killed.
the goal is to contaminate the pro-choice position with the context of Nazi Germany...to do so, we must entirely ignore any comparisons of their contexts.
They contaminate their own position. The goal is to show what is taking place is comparable and unjust.
The Physical
Unlike a Jew, a pregnancy is, inherently, causes a variety of physical effect on the mother...against a mother's will reduces her capacity for self-ownership and self-preservation...The physical toll is utterly incomparable to anything experienced by the Nazis...
The analogy is faulty for several reasons:
1. What of the effect and concern for the unborn? It is forgotten, of minor/no importance to Pro.
2. Experienced by the Nazis? What about the physical toll experienced by the Jew, the unborn? Both results are death for the Jew and unborn, yet not the woman, nor the Nazi.
3. What about the potential future self-ownership and self-preservation of the actual unborn? It is of little or no value to Pro.
the survival of Jews in 1930's Germany was never at odds with the rights of other German people, the survival of an unborn child is directly at odds with the rights of the mother.
The survival of the Jews was at odds with the German Nazi position, just like the survival of the unborn are at odds with the pro-choice woman's position. The most basic natural right - the right to life - is at odds in both groups, the Jew and the unborn.
Genocide [IS] Choice
Killing the Jews was a choice the Nazis made through propaganda campaigns and legislation, just like killing the unborn is a choice the woman does, influenced by propaganda campaigns and laws. The comparison sticks.
Pro-choice people argue that expectant mothers should have the individual choice to keep or abort the unborn.
At the expense of the marginalized unborn.
pro-choice people still having children.
And they still kill innocent children - their own. (The two-wrongs principle)
***
"pro-choice people automatically afford those humans full rights when they become viable. Compare that with the Nazis: those they killed received nothing but negative value, and there was no opportunity to obtain rights of any kind."
Some do at viability, but just like the Nazis, rights are denied with a negative value to human unborns before viability.
Conclusion
Pro has primarily ignored the resolution, a comparison of Jews and the Unborn in regards to dehumanization and injustices via language, laws, and cultural similarities.
I'll start with Con’s points.
1) Language
Con cherry-picks arguments made by individual pro-choice people as straw men to represent the pro-choice argument as a whole. In my OV2, I explained why this is problematic, as the resolution requires that we analyze the pro-choice position, not individual pro-choice arguments. Con even tries to shift away from language in his response to my OV2, arguing that the focus should be on the “mindset” of the people speaking or the “pattern” that speech represents. Mindset is not language, nor is a “pattern” constituted by that language equivalent to the language itself, and neither is indicative of the pro-choice position. Neither mindsets nor patterns among people who support a given stance are emblematic of the stance itself, nor do they establish the intentions behind said position. Ironically, Con’s efforts to distance his arguments from reductio ad Hitlerium have further exposed his efforts to reduce the entire pro-choice position down to what a select, cherry-picked few have said.
2) Laws
Laws are not passed in a vacuum. I will get into the context and how it applies on my OV3, but the laws Con cites for Nazi Germany had the stated, sole goal of removing rights from citizens. By contrast, Roe v. Wade established both the rights of pregnant women and the rights of the unborn by comparison.
3) Culture
Con’s comparison hinges on the notion that both pro-choice proponents and Hitler engaged in propaganda, yet he provides nothing but a quote from Hitler on the latter and focuses entirely on “PC liberal ideas” for the former. This argument doesn’t impact the debate at all; Con fails to link the pro-choice position to this propaganda, fails to make any direct comparison to actual propaganda used by the Nazis, and instead gets tied up in calling out liberals on college campuses. It is yet more cherry-picking of how some pro-choice people behave and this time with even less effort to compare.
Onto my points.
OV1:
This debate is not over the morality of abortion, hence issues that involve the morality of abortion are not relevant. No matter what’s said in the description regarding the position that Pro takes in this debate, his burden, what he’s actually required to show, is spelled out by the resolution: he must show that the pro-choice position should be compared with language or actions used by the Nazis. The important word there is “should,” yet the position Con quotes from the description exchanges it for “can” as he tries to turn this into a straight fact debate. My OV3 showed that this was not the case, yet Con consistently focuses on cherry-picked points of comparison. He presents several more here, none of which further his position.
The only larger point Con makes here is that discrimination and dehumanization characterizes both the pro-choice position and Nazi ideology. I will cross-apply two points: my OV2 and Importance of Context. All of Con’s points here rely on terminology used by a subset of people who are pro-choice, and they rely on entirely stripping out the context by which these decisions were made. More importantly, even if it is true that both groups engage in discrimination and dehumanization, that does not mean that the comparison should be made, which gets back to my OV3.
OV2:
Cross-apply my points on language here. Patterns and mindsets are not equivalent to the pro-choice position, no matter how Con contorts them. Con also fails to understand how either reduction ad Hitlerium and Godwin’s Law apply to his case, which I’ll get to on OV3. Pro does later argue that “[o]rdinary people who associate with a particular belief can do terrible things”, which, again, is off-topic. We’re not talking about pro-choice individuals, we’re talking about the pro-choice position. The decisions of some actors do not establish that the position itself is harmful.
OV3:
Con drops that this is an a priori issue. This is crucial, because if I'm winning any of these points, they precede any discussion of the accuracy of the comparison we're discussing; it can be factually accurate and still fail to meet his burden to show that it should be used.
Does it effectively convey a greater understanding of abortion?
Con drops that understanding of the pro-choice position in any sense does not demand comparison to the Nazis, and his quote of my argument, which he characterizes as fallacious, excludes a large swath of my point: “If Con wants to convey the importance of these lives by comparison to others, then he could easily do so without invoking a fascist regime, and that inefficiency alone is enough to dismiss the comparison.” At no point does Con argue that his comparison is more efficient than directly examining the pro-choice position, nor does he address my warrant that such an argument would be more efficient than his comparison. These drops function as a concession of the argument. The only response he gives that addresses the point is this:
“It shows how language, laws, and culture can adversely sway a society into adopting unjust ‘rights’/practices and dehumanizing the unborn just like the Jew.”
There is a lot of loaded language in here, but the main problem with this is Con’s willingness to strip out any context that does not fit his narrative. Unlike the Nazis, pro-choice people aren’t establishing a fascist regime. 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. Con’s argument here relies on a direct comparison of how pro-choice people and Nazis have pushed their positions, yet he entirely excludes any mention of how the Nazis actually did this. To Con, it is just as terrible that legal protections have been enshrined by the USSC, a body nominated and appointed by representatives of the American electorate, following a trial that clearly warranted a decision on the matter. He can disagree with their decision, call it tainted by language and smear the judges, but that doesn’t change that the means by which abortion came to be legalized are entirely distinct from those behind how the Nazis came to power and enforced their rule. He cherry-picks the context he cares about, using a knife to slice up his puzzle pieces to make them fit neatly together. In all three cases – language, laws and culture – Con fails to establish that the contexts are at all similar. That failure defeats this argument, which relies entirely on their similar contexts for the one to inform the other. All he’s done is force an illogical comparison to unfairly malign the pro-choice position.
Does it induce improved discussion of abortion?
The point here is that Con’s comparison functions as a distraction that takes away from understanding of abortion as an issue. He drops that this very debate is evidence of that distraction, preventing debate on abortion directly. At no point does he explain how being aware of a separate injustice that virtually everyone already knows about increases understanding of abortion as an issue. The number of people who have died and the bodily autonomy of the unborn are non-sequiturs. I am pointing to contexts that distinguish between the pro-choice position and that of the Nazis, each of which show that the two are distinct. The existence of similarities does not remove these dissimilarities. I also explained why comparisons that exclude these factors are problematic. Those points were the basis for my citing reduction ad Hitlerium (“cherry-picking portions of two much larger and more complex ideologies is inherently flawed”), yet Con dismisses them without addressing this point. Leaving out the essential context to make what would otherwise be an invalid comparison appear valid is classic reduction ad Hitlerium, despite Con’s protestations.
Con’s other points are non-responsive. Neither pro-choice nor pro-life people side should engage in language that prevents meaningful discussion. It's a classic tu quoque fallacy: pointing out that others do it too doesn’t make you less guilty. If that comparison pushes others away from the debate, then it should be discarded; Con dropped this argument. His claim that I’m somehow using “emotive, heated, loaded language,” (despite the fact that I’m citing his own statement about triggering moral outrage and I’m justifying that terminology throughout – he’s cherry-picking terms and ignoring warrants), similarly does nothing to justify the comparison he’s supporting. Even if moral outrage is appropriate, inciting further outrage is not beneficial to a discussion of abortion. It is a blatant appeal to emotion that detracts from logical, meaningful debate.
Con also drops every impact. He justifies responses from pro-life groups that increase harms and shut down discussion further. He damages historical understanding of the Nazis and understanding of pro-choice viewpoints, taking away opportunities to learn from the past. This turns his main point against him: skewing history by removing essential context ensures that more people will engage in this kind of comparison, treating everything that they view as “adversely sway[ing] a society” as Nazi-like and destroying any possible value that could be achieved. Finally, he ignores the reality that any such comparison, no matter how validated, is dismissed immediately due to the near ubiquity of such comparisons outlined by Godwin’s Law.
The Importance of Context
Con justifies his points by arguing that the comparison is apt in some ways. Again, this argument (and OV2) is that excluding large swaths of how the Nazis and pro-choice position in order to make this comparison is the problem. Con has spent an excessive amount of time in his previous debates trying to contaminate the pro-choice context with the Nazi context, including providing extensive history on Nazi Germany.[1] Whether others do this is beside the point. Con is engaging in the very contamination he decries in others and, thus, should be punished for it. Vote Con down for engaging in behaviors he calls out pro-choice people for doing.
The Physical
Con’s rebuttal focuses on the unborn and ignores the argument I’ve provided. If anything, they further validate the argument I’m making: the unborn is physically dependent on the mother, just as the mother is physically affected by the unborn. This clearly separates the circumstances of the unborn and Jews, as well as the Nazis and pregnant, pro-choice mothers. Con does is point out two ways in which they are similar (that they both experience tolls from being killed, and their lives are both “at odds” with another), but deliberately excludes context about physical dependence. This response only further validates my point: Con’s skewed view about what suffices as context renders this comparison moot. The remainder of his points about concern for the unborn have nothing to do with this argument.
Genocide vs. Choice
Con tries to argue that the Nazis chose to kill the Jews just as pro-choice people choose to kill the unborn. This is a dramatic oversimplification. The choices the Nazis made were from a seat of a fascist dictatorship, imposing their views on a minority using fear tactics and military power. He drops that their goal was “a systematic, coercive project of racial purity… they wanted… populations to disappear”. He also drops that pro-choice people are part of a population under a government, are engaging in personal choices based on what is legally allowed (no one is telling them to go out and kill the unborn), and continue to have children – they do not want the unborn to disappear. Finally, he concedes that there is a clear difference in their relative capacities to gain rights, as the unborn gain those rights as soon as they are viable, whereas the populations persecuted by the Nazis were never granted such opportunities. Pointing out that some individuals perceive the unborn with reduced value is not equivalent to a complete and total denial of rights by the Nazis.
1) Language
Con cherry-picks arguments made by individual pro-choice people as straw men to represent the pro-choice argument as a whole. In my OV2, I explained why this is problematic, as the resolution requires that we analyze the pro-choice position, not individual pro-choice arguments. Con even tries to shift away from language in his response to my OV2, arguing that the focus should be on the “mindset” of the people speaking or the “pattern” that speech represents. Mindset is not language, nor is a “pattern” constituted by that language equivalent to the language itself, and neither is indicative of the pro-choice position. Neither mindsets nor patterns among people who support a given stance are emblematic of the stance itself, nor do they establish the intentions behind said position. Ironically, Con’s efforts to distance his arguments from reductio ad Hitlerium have further exposed his efforts to reduce the entire pro-choice position down to what a select, cherry-picked few have said.
2) Laws
Laws are not passed in a vacuum. I will get into the context and how it applies on my OV3, but the laws Con cites for Nazi Germany had the stated, sole goal of removing rights from citizens. By contrast, Roe v. Wade established both the rights of pregnant women and the rights of the unborn by comparison.
3) Culture
Con’s comparison hinges on the notion that both pro-choice proponents and Hitler engaged in propaganda, yet he provides nothing but a quote from Hitler on the latter and focuses entirely on “PC liberal ideas” for the former. This argument doesn’t impact the debate at all; Con fails to link the pro-choice position to this propaganda, fails to make any direct comparison to actual propaganda used by the Nazis, and instead gets tied up in calling out liberals on college campuses. It is yet more cherry-picking of how some pro-choice people behave and this time with even less effort to compare.
Onto my points.
OV1:
This debate is not over the morality of abortion, hence issues that involve the morality of abortion are not relevant. No matter what’s said in the description regarding the position that Pro takes in this debate, his burden, what he’s actually required to show, is spelled out by the resolution: he must show that the pro-choice position should be compared with language or actions used by the Nazis. The important word there is “should,” yet the position Con quotes from the description exchanges it for “can” as he tries to turn this into a straight fact debate. My OV3 showed that this was not the case, yet Con consistently focuses on cherry-picked points of comparison. He presents several more here, none of which further his position.
The only larger point Con makes here is that discrimination and dehumanization characterizes both the pro-choice position and Nazi ideology. I will cross-apply two points: my OV2 and Importance of Context. All of Con’s points here rely on terminology used by a subset of people who are pro-choice, and they rely on entirely stripping out the context by which these decisions were made. More importantly, even if it is true that both groups engage in discrimination and dehumanization, that does not mean that the comparison should be made, which gets back to my OV3.
OV2:
Cross-apply my points on language here. Patterns and mindsets are not equivalent to the pro-choice position, no matter how Con contorts them. Con also fails to understand how either reduction ad Hitlerium and Godwin’s Law apply to his case, which I’ll get to on OV3. Pro does later argue that “[o]rdinary people who associate with a particular belief can do terrible things”, which, again, is off-topic. We’re not talking about pro-choice individuals, we’re talking about the pro-choice position. The decisions of some actors do not establish that the position itself is harmful.
OV3:
Con drops that this is an a priori issue. This is crucial, because if I'm winning any of these points, they precede any discussion of the accuracy of the comparison we're discussing; it can be factually accurate and still fail to meet his burden to show that it should be used.
Does it effectively convey a greater understanding of abortion?
Con drops that understanding of the pro-choice position in any sense does not demand comparison to the Nazis, and his quote of my argument, which he characterizes as fallacious, excludes a large swath of my point: “If Con wants to convey the importance of these lives by comparison to others, then he could easily do so without invoking a fascist regime, and that inefficiency alone is enough to dismiss the comparison.” At no point does Con argue that his comparison is more efficient than directly examining the pro-choice position, nor does he address my warrant that such an argument would be more efficient than his comparison. These drops function as a concession of the argument. The only response he gives that addresses the point is this:
“It shows how language, laws, and culture can adversely sway a society into adopting unjust ‘rights’/practices and dehumanizing the unborn just like the Jew.”
There is a lot of loaded language in here, but the main problem with this is Con’s willingness to strip out any context that does not fit his narrative. Unlike the Nazis, pro-choice people aren’t establishing a fascist regime. 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. Con’s argument here relies on a direct comparison of how pro-choice people and Nazis have pushed their positions, yet he entirely excludes any mention of how the Nazis actually did this. To Con, it is just as terrible that legal protections have been enshrined by the USSC, a body nominated and appointed by representatives of the American electorate, following a trial that clearly warranted a decision on the matter. He can disagree with their decision, call it tainted by language and smear the judges, but that doesn’t change that the means by which abortion came to be legalized are entirely distinct from those behind how the Nazis came to power and enforced their rule. He cherry-picks the context he cares about, using a knife to slice up his puzzle pieces to make them fit neatly together. In all three cases – language, laws and culture – Con fails to establish that the contexts are at all similar. That failure defeats this argument, which relies entirely on their similar contexts for the one to inform the other. All he’s done is force an illogical comparison to unfairly malign the pro-choice position.
Does it induce improved discussion of abortion?
The point here is that Con’s comparison functions as a distraction that takes away from understanding of abortion as an issue. He drops that this very debate is evidence of that distraction, preventing debate on abortion directly. At no point does he explain how being aware of a separate injustice that virtually everyone already knows about increases understanding of abortion as an issue. The number of people who have died and the bodily autonomy of the unborn are non-sequiturs. I am pointing to contexts that distinguish between the pro-choice position and that of the Nazis, each of which show that the two are distinct. The existence of similarities does not remove these dissimilarities. I also explained why comparisons that exclude these factors are problematic. Those points were the basis for my citing reduction ad Hitlerium (“cherry-picking portions of two much larger and more complex ideologies is inherently flawed”), yet Con dismisses them without addressing this point. Leaving out the essential context to make what would otherwise be an invalid comparison appear valid is classic reduction ad Hitlerium, despite Con’s protestations.
Con’s other points are non-responsive. Neither pro-choice nor pro-life people side should engage in language that prevents meaningful discussion. It's a classic tu quoque fallacy: pointing out that others do it too doesn’t make you less guilty. If that comparison pushes others away from the debate, then it should be discarded; Con dropped this argument. His claim that I’m somehow using “emotive, heated, loaded language,” (despite the fact that I’m citing his own statement about triggering moral outrage and I’m justifying that terminology throughout – he’s cherry-picking terms and ignoring warrants), similarly does nothing to justify the comparison he’s supporting. Even if moral outrage is appropriate, inciting further outrage is not beneficial to a discussion of abortion. It is a blatant appeal to emotion that detracts from logical, meaningful debate.
Con also drops every impact. He justifies responses from pro-life groups that increase harms and shut down discussion further. He damages historical understanding of the Nazis and understanding of pro-choice viewpoints, taking away opportunities to learn from the past. This turns his main point against him: skewing history by removing essential context ensures that more people will engage in this kind of comparison, treating everything that they view as “adversely sway[ing] a society” as Nazi-like and destroying any possible value that could be achieved. Finally, he ignores the reality that any such comparison, no matter how validated, is dismissed immediately due to the near ubiquity of such comparisons outlined by Godwin’s Law.
The Importance of Context
Con justifies his points by arguing that the comparison is apt in some ways. Again, this argument (and OV2) is that excluding large swaths of how the Nazis and pro-choice position in order to make this comparison is the problem. Con has spent an excessive amount of time in his previous debates trying to contaminate the pro-choice context with the Nazi context, including providing extensive history on Nazi Germany.[1] Whether others do this is beside the point. Con is engaging in the very contamination he decries in others and, thus, should be punished for it. Vote Con down for engaging in behaviors he calls out pro-choice people for doing.
The Physical
Con’s rebuttal focuses on the unborn and ignores the argument I’ve provided. If anything, they further validate the argument I’m making: the unborn is physically dependent on the mother, just as the mother is physically affected by the unborn. This clearly separates the circumstances of the unborn and Jews, as well as the Nazis and pregnant, pro-choice mothers. Con does is point out two ways in which they are similar (that they both experience tolls from being killed, and their lives are both “at odds” with another), but deliberately excludes context about physical dependence. This response only further validates my point: Con’s skewed view about what suffices as context renders this comparison moot. The remainder of his points about concern for the unborn have nothing to do with this argument.
Genocide vs. Choice
Con tries to argue that the Nazis chose to kill the Jews just as pro-choice people choose to kill the unborn. This is a dramatic oversimplification. The choices the Nazis made were from a seat of a fascist dictatorship, imposing their views on a minority using fear tactics and military power. He drops that their goal was “a systematic, coercive project of racial purity… they wanted… populations to disappear”. He also drops that pro-choice people are part of a population under a government, are engaging in personal choices based on what is legally allowed (no one is telling them to go out and kill the unborn), and continue to have children – they do not want the unborn to disappear. Finally, he concedes that there is a clear difference in their relative capacities to gain rights, as the unborn gain those rights as soon as they are viable, whereas the populations persecuted by the Nazis were never granted such opportunities. Pointing out that some individuals perceive the unborn with reduced value is not equivalent to a complete and total denial of rights by the Nazis.
Round 3
What is my comparison between pro-choice
and the Nazis? It is dehumanization and methods used by both in achieving their goals of marginalizing human groups. Being Pro-choice means that the life of an innocent human being takes
second place to the wants and desires of the woman controlling its life just as
the life of Jews took second place to the elitism and control of the Nazis.
Rebuttals
1) Language
Pro contends my argument cherry-picks pro-choice individuals
instead of identifying an overall mindset.
Mindset1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations.2. An inclination or a habit. [1]
What these individuals have in common with the overall
movement is believing a woman should have a choice and right to kill her
unborn? Pro-choice use language to lessen and degrade the value of the
unborn then okay its execution in mass numbers. The overall mentality in Nazi Germany
did the SAME thing – devalued and dehumanized through words, then unjust laws,
eventually leading to the mass killing of human beings. Quotes from individual
pro-choicers are not straw men. They depict devaluation and dehumanization.
Abortion debates, online sites and articles, pro-choice rallies, organizations,
and movements demonstrate the same.
Ex. 1 – Online articles
"The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person[…] what it [the unborn] actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it may become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish." [4]
The article shows a misunderstanding of science, philosophy,
and morality.
Mirrored language is regurgitated by
pro-choice individuals online. Debates, lectures, talk shows, rallies, and media language represent the pro-choice position. As for influence and propaganda, it
paints a negative image of the unborn while elevating the woman to the status
of a victim.
Ex. 2 - Debates
R2:
"It does not matter if this intruder is
considered a group of cells, viable/inviable fetus, human being, and/or
a person […] it cannot be legitimately argued a fetus is a person (an
individual human) while it exists as an extension of a person's body […] a
fetus is, at best, a potential person while inside of (and dependent on)
the body and will of another."
R3:
"An individual is well within their rights to repel
an attack or refuse consent to their body regardless of what we call the
other party […] before birth, a fetus is an extension of a woman's body,
and as such, any rights it has are an extension of the mother's rights. After
birth, a new individual human being exists in the world with rights of their own [ …] The
Holocaust was an indisputable violation of the rights of millions of people. Abortion
allows humans rights to women equal to that of men."
R4:
"My position is fetuses are an extension of a woman's
body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an
individual human being." [5]
The pro-choice defence degrades and dehumanizes the unborn,
takes away its natural human rights, continually downplaying its importance and
equality as a human being - i.e., the Declaration
of Independence – created equal with unalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. Pro-choice removes the unborns' individuality and the fundamental
legal right to life on the choice of the woman. They focus solely on
the woman. They frequently
misrepresent what the unborn is - i.e., an extension of a woman's body, cannot be considered a person,
a group of cells, comparable to an animal, something other than a human being. The unborn's natural right to equality under the
law vanishes as a human being while elevating the rights of the woman.
Similarly, the Nazis 1) degraded and dehumanized the Jew, 2) took away both their legal and natural rights and citizenship, 3) took away their freedoms,
all the while promoting the Nazi Party in its elitism.
Ex. 3 – Media, Lectures, Rallies, Marches - Sampling the pro-choice mentality/group-think propaganda:
[9] esp. 1:50-2:15; 3:00-3:39; 3:52-4:06; 5:11-5:14; 6:32-6:49; 10:10-10:18;
11:58-12:37; 12:37-12:57,
[10] esp. 1:28-2:10; 5:27-6:13; 6:40-7:06; 8:17-8:34,
[11] 1:20-1:29 --> “My rights, my body.” What about the body and rights of the innocent unborn?
As with Nazi Germany, a group is marginalized.
b) Seventy-five webpages of pro-choice negative devaluation
or dehumanization of the unborn. [12]
Pros View:
“For that matter, I think questioning the point at which a
life becomes unique, individual, or human is reasonable.” [13] Comment 34.
Pro devalues the uniqueness, individuality, and humanity of
the unborn.
Pro defines what a person is:
“As Warren states, there are five properties that characterize persons:
1. Consciousness, and in particular the capacity to feel pain
2. Reasoning
3. Self-motivated activity
4. The capacity to communicate by whatever means
5. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness
A person need not have all of these, but they much have more than one to be a person. As a fetus has, at most, only the first, it is not a person. Establishing this, the lack of personhood also leads to a lack of the fundamental right to life that other persons have.[2]” [14]
While Pro concedes the first point, he should also concede the
third as well, thus by his standard, granting its personhood.
The unborn
“has the natural capacity to bring on the functioning of the brain…contains the natural capacity to develop all the human activities: perceiving, reasoning, willing and relating to others.” [15]
Additionally, Pro confuses the “not yet” with the “already
has been,” again undermining the value of the unborn. Rephrased:
“[T]he prebrain‐functioning unborn entity has a natural inherent capacity for brain functioning while the corpse does not.” [15]
My view, R3:
“How does the woman's right to choose hereby
equate in any way to tyranny and Hitler?
One class of human beings is devalued, discriminated
against, demonized, and dehumanized.”
Thus, Pros claim of cherry-picking, a strawman, is not
justified since view after view confirms,
1) There is a valid comparison - dehumanization. Its actions
are observed in a variety of ways.
2) The individual pro-choice shares the default pro-choice
position – the woman can kill her unborn.
3) Both use language, laws, and culture to promote this
killing.
2) Law/OV1
What is of concern in this debate is the value placed on
human life. When not all human beings are intrinsically valuable, any injustice
can be permitted. Killing innocent human beings is a moral and legal issue, a
wrong—both in Nazi Germany and with pro-choice abortion advocates. Both dehumanize a particular human group. Both fail to recognize the
wrong and harm of killing innocent human beings.
Pro charges the laws I cited for Nazi Germany removed the
rights from citizens, yet what rights does Roe V. Wade establish for and remove from the
unborn? Roe V. Wade removes the most fundamental legal and natural right – the right to life
– being robbed from the unborn at the woman's discretion. The Pro-choice
position advocates for the removal of such core rights at the discretion of the
woman. Likewise, the Nazis chose to remove the rights of the Jew. Both legal systems were unjust and discriminatory.
What set up the erosion of the unborn’s rights was Roe V.
Wade, just as particular laws in Nazi Germany did to the Jew (see R1). Getting
to that landmark decision involved a cultural shift, discussed later.
Justice Blackmun incorporated three to four
fallacies,
1. “The presence of disagreement (or the absence of ‘consensus’) indicates the absence of truth”
in regards to when life begins. The opinion of seven of nine justices moulded public opinion for decades to come.
Equating
2. “moral questions with matters of religious faith or private belief, [...] cannot be judged finally as true or false.” P. 3603. “Blackmun […] never subjected to the test of principle reasoning his […] assumptions about the nature of the fetus and its standing in the eyes of the law.” P. 361
Mixing
the incompatibility of personal, subjective taste with a moral wrong is
inconsistent with logic. That is to say,
4.“ ’X is wrong’ and yet to insist at the same time that ‘people must be left to do X or not, as it suits their own pleasure.’ ” p.361 [16]
3) Culture
Pro says my views focus "entirely on 'PC liberal ideas' " but liberals generally push a pro-choice ideology.
Pro-choice advocates seem to hold a Democrat, liberal preference, more so the further left one is.
Examples of liberal leftist pro-choice, pro-abortion stance:
[17] 0:00-8:00,
Cross-sample liberals on Debate.org Leaderboard to understand their predominant identification. [21]
IdeologyConservative – 24% pro-choice of 391 surveyed.Moderate – 49% of 341.Liberal – 76% of 252.Party IDRepublican – 21% pro-choice of 340 surveyed.Independent – 48% of 352.Democratic – 68% of 299. [22]
2020 Democrat Presidential candidates on abortion (mostly leftists):
Views on abortion, 1995-2019:
The vast majority of liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners support legal abortion (91%), as do three-quarters of conservative and moderate Democrats (75%). [25]
The link is established!
OV1
Pro charges,
"This debate is not over the morality of abortion, hence issues that involve the morality of abortion are not relevant."
The law deals with morality. It is relevant. Killing unwanted innocent human beings violates moral laws also, whether Nazi Germany or pro-choice. Pro tries to detach the issue of morality.
"Should" implies a moral ought. " Ought" and " ought not" is what laws are based upon. His point does not stand.
Pro says the comparison should not be made. It should on the grounds of it being a well-documented fact. The lesson should be learned to avoid dehumanizing, devaluing, and destroying innocent human beings.
OV2
See 'Mindset' under Language.
Pro charges I misunderstand
"how either reduction ad Hitlerium and Godwin’s Law apply to his case."
I would contend that not every reference to Hitler or Nazi Germany is invalid or there could be no comparisons. I have taken a specific comparison and shown it is valid.
Ordinary people
apply to both the Germans and pro-choicers to illustrate how defective thinking can result in what should not be done.
OV3
See the second last point of OV2.
These comparisons definitely convey a greater understanding of abortion as morally wrong (in most cases) because devaluing, dehumanizing, and killing innocent human beings are WRONG.
My comparisons do NOT distract from understanding abortion. It is wrong to take an innocent life. Both groups are guilty of doing so.
Pro charges the number dead and bodily autonomy of the unborn are non-sequiturs. Why? Devaluation and dehumanization are apparent in both instances, Nazi and pro-choice.
The Physical
Pro shows once again he will not give the same equality to the unborn human being he gives to the woman based in part on dependency.
Pro confuses dependency and the mother's discomfort with the right of the unborn to live. The circumstances are the same - dehumanization and erasing the right to life takes place with both groups, Jew and unborn.
Genocide IS Choice
Both groups, Nazis and pro-choice choose to wrongly kill massive numbers of innocent human beings.
I
am going to reorganize this debate to focus on those aspects that will decide
it.
Let us start with a priori issues.
In my opening round, I argued that there were two thresholds that any comparison must meet to establish that one is obliged to (should) make said comparison:
1) They must convey a greater understanding of the issue, and
2) They must induce improved discussion of the issue
Con is advocating for a specific comparison; ergo, he must show that said comparison increases understanding and improved discussion of abortion as an issue. If he fails to do so, regardless of any factual accuracy, then he fails to meet his burden in this debate. Con dropped this last round, and now argues that the comparison should be made “on the grounds of it being a well-documented fact”, a point which I addressed in my OV3 by explaining the difference between “should” and “can” in this context. This is about more than just a fact-based comparison where Con can just cherry-pick elements of each to make the comparison work, yet Con continues to argue that he can do just that, while simultaneously dropping my definitions and reasoning that explain why he cannot. The following points under this argument were never directly rebutted:
1) The comparison is a staggeringly inefficient means to presenting Con’s stance on abortion.
2) This is an inherently emotionally inciting comparison, pushing pro-choice advocates away from an abortion debate. Comparisons that push others away from a debate should be discarded. Con concedes this harm by calling out others for the same behavior.
3) The comparison incites pro-life groups to physically harm those they deem as immoral, further shutting down discussion. One example of this is Shelly Shannon, who tried to kill Dr. George Tiller in 1993. She justified attempted murder by saying she believed that it was “justifiable force” to end the lives of abortion providers, whom she compared to Hitler.[https://nyti.ms/3h0Z23f]
4) Excluding any substantial context from the comparison damages opportunities to understand both the Nazis and the pro-choice position.
5) That excluded context, as well as the dismissal of its importance, is used by others to engage in comparisons of the Nazis with different groups and political leaders, rendering the comparison too common to have meaning and, thus, destroying any possible value that could be achieved by this comparison.
6) The near ubiquity of such comparisons (i.e. Godwin’s Law) in status quo undercuts any value to making yet another comparison.
Any one of these functions as an independent reason to vote Con down before even considering his arguments on the accuracy of his claims, as Con conceded that they are all a priori. Con’s best-case scenario here is that voters buy that there is a direct comparison between two instances of dehumanization and how they were achieved. At no point in this round has Con responded to the list of contextual differences between the two (see: absence of fascist regime, a mandate, symbols of oppression, herding into camps and mass gassings, enforcement via military power), but even if you grant him the accuracy of this comparison and the value of learning about it (which Con only assumes – he never states how anyone should use this information), the above drops establish it as utterly insufficient to meet Con’s burden.
Before I get into my constructive points, it must be clarified precisely how Con’s arguments fail to meet his burdens, as this all stems from internal inconsistency.
Con wants to have his cake and eat it, too, i.e. he wants to make specific claims that exclude large swaths of context, and simultaneously wants those comparisons to inform the broader context that these two groups represent. Yet, Con has conceded that much of the contexts of the Nazi and pro-choice position are starkly different. No matter how many similarities Con selects from the two sides of this comparison, these differences establish that their contexts are distinct. That is the basis for much of my argument, yet Con never directly addresses this point. So, let’s look at the individual points that establish this.
Under my constructive arguments, I showed those specific pieces of context that were missing from this comparison. This is why riductio ad Hitlerium applies to Con’s argument. Further, I established why the issue of context is unavoidable for any fact-based comparison under The Importance of Context: this comparison only has value by “contaminat[ing] the pro-choice position with the context of Nazi Germany”. Con decries the very same context contamination from pro-choice people (he really seems to love the tu quoque fallacy), so he accepts that context is important, meaning that his only choice is to argue that these contextual differences do not exist.
In this, he clearly fails. In The Physical, I showed that physical effects of the unborn on the mother and the physical dependence of the unborn on the mother “clearly separate the circumstances of the unborn and the Jews, as well as the Nazis and pregnant, pro-choice mothers.” This is a factual difference; the circumstances, despite Con’s assertions to the contrary, are clearly different. Even if both are characterized by dehumanization, that context establishes that the rights of either the mother or the unborn will always be at odds, while the rights of the Nazis and those they killed did not feature a similar dynamic. Con drops all of this.
Con’s only topical argument, Law, is made ineffectual by these contextual omissions. As I said previously, “the laws Con cites for Nazi Germany had the stated, sole goal of removing rights from citizens. By contrast, Roe v. Wade established both the rights of pregnant women and the rights of the unborn by comparison.” Con dismisses this without directly addressing the point, charging that the removal of rights from the unborn is the same as removal from a subset of citizens. This, of course, ignores the context: the latter is a loss of comparative rights, where either mothers or the unborn will lose rights regardless, while the former is simply stripping one subset of the population of their rights. Instead of acknowledging this, Con digs down into the logic used to decide the case of Roe V. Wade, which is off topic. Flaws in Blackmun’s opinion are non-sequiturs, even if they influenced public opinion, because, as I will discuss once again shortly, they are not representative of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position is not established by any individuals, even those sitting on the USSC. Con also argues that there are similarities, though none of these detract from the glaring contextual differences. Again, the existence of similarities does not erase the differences, yet Con’s position relies on those differences being minor or inconsequential. They are not, no matter how much he deflects.
Con also drops my point on Genocide vs. Choice, where I established the differences between “the Nazis… imposing their views on a minority using fear tactics and military power” as part of “a systemic, coercive project of racial purity… they wanted… populations to disappear” and “pro-choice people… engaging in personal choices based on what’s legally allowed… and continu[ing] to have children.” Con cannot wave away these differences, particularly as the main justification for his argument is that we can compare how the Nazis and pro-choice people achieve their ends. Con also cannot pretend that there’s no difference between affording rights to those who never had them in the future (which pro-choice people argue should be the case for the unborn) and permanently stripping people who had rights they already had (which the Nazis did).
The remainder of this debate is almost entirely non-topical, as I established with my overviews.
In my OV1, I explained why issues regarding the morality of abortion are not relevant to this debate by definition, and in my OV3, I explained why arguments like these fail to meet his burdens. Instead of addressing either of these, he asserts that he has met some hidden burden not found in the resolution. Despite abortion not being mentioned in the resolution, despite the definitions clearly establishing that this is a debate on the comparison between the Nazis and the pro-choice position, Con has spent large swaths of this debate arguing that the morality of abortion is somehow key to this debate. The existence of the word “should” does not magically make every moral argument valid. At best, you might buy that this establishes some possibility of a factual comparison between two circumstances of discrimination and dehumanization, though even if that’s the case (more on that shortly), Con will only have established that a comparison can be made, not that one should be made. Refer to my OV3 and The Importance of Context for why.
In my OV2 (and on Con's Language argument), I argued that the pro-choice position is distinct from any mindsets or patterns that crop up among pro-choice people: “Neither mindsets nor patterns among people who support a given stance are emblematic of the stance itself, nor do they establish the intentions behind said position” and “[p]atterns and mindsets are not equivalent to the pro-choice position”. Con argues that the language used by pro-choice people is emblematic of the mindset, but again, a pro-choice mindset is not indicative of the pro-choice position. Con even spends about half of this round quoting online articles, debates, other media, my own views and apparently digging to find an old debate of mine on DDO (an interesting re-read, though my views have changed from… wow, was that really 6 years ago?). All of this can be thrown out. The sample size is far too small to call it representative of the entire pro-choice population, but even if it was, they are not representative of the pro-choice position. No matter how many instances Con cherry-picks, as every example he gives merely shows what language pro-choice people use, and not what the pro-choice position is, which was established in the definitions and includes none of the language Con cites from other sources.
This also applies to Con’s Culture argument, for which Con includes plenty of examples to show that pro-choice people are “liberal leftists”, but once again fails to establish any connection between propaganda and the pro-choice position. Use of propaganda only establishes that some people are using these tactics, not that the pro-choice position is inextricable from them. Con also consistently fails to establish any link between this propaganda and the propaganda used by the Nazis in the last 3 rounds, meaning that he has not even upheld his own comparison with this point.
Conclusion
Con wanted to have a different debate than the resolution and definitions call for, and unfortunately for him, his arguments simply do not do enough to show that he was successful in negating the resolution as it stands.
Con’s argument relies on one reason, and one reason only, for why the comparison should be made (the remainder of his points focus on why it could be made): he claims he can inform readers of “how language, laws, and culture can adversely sway a society into adopting unjust ‘rights’/practices and dehumanizing the unborn just like the Jew.” All of these points are built on context: he must demonstrate that the language, laws and culture of pro-choice people represent the pro-choice position; he must show that the methods used by the Nazis and those by pro-choice people are largely indistinguishable; he must show that their aims – the actual purposes of these pursuits – are objectively very similar. As I have shown, all these claims are questionable at best, if not outright false. However, none of them must be completely wrong. Substantial differences deplete the comparison of any value, reducing it to a comparison between clearly unlike entities. Con’s argument relies on the broad applicability of his comparison being meaningful, and he has yet to demonstrate that it is. And if this comparison is not meaningful, then none of his arguments affirm the resolution.
Let us start with a priori issues.
In my opening round, I argued that there were two thresholds that any comparison must meet to establish that one is obliged to (should) make said comparison:
1) They must convey a greater understanding of the issue, and
2) They must induce improved discussion of the issue
Con is advocating for a specific comparison; ergo, he must show that said comparison increases understanding and improved discussion of abortion as an issue. If he fails to do so, regardless of any factual accuracy, then he fails to meet his burden in this debate. Con dropped this last round, and now argues that the comparison should be made “on the grounds of it being a well-documented fact”, a point which I addressed in my OV3 by explaining the difference between “should” and “can” in this context. This is about more than just a fact-based comparison where Con can just cherry-pick elements of each to make the comparison work, yet Con continues to argue that he can do just that, while simultaneously dropping my definitions and reasoning that explain why he cannot. The following points under this argument were never directly rebutted:
1) The comparison is a staggeringly inefficient means to presenting Con’s stance on abortion.
2) This is an inherently emotionally inciting comparison, pushing pro-choice advocates away from an abortion debate. Comparisons that push others away from a debate should be discarded. Con concedes this harm by calling out others for the same behavior.
3) The comparison incites pro-life groups to physically harm those they deem as immoral, further shutting down discussion. One example of this is Shelly Shannon, who tried to kill Dr. George Tiller in 1993. She justified attempted murder by saying she believed that it was “justifiable force” to end the lives of abortion providers, whom she compared to Hitler.[https://nyti.ms/3h0Z23f]
4) Excluding any substantial context from the comparison damages opportunities to understand both the Nazis and the pro-choice position.
5) That excluded context, as well as the dismissal of its importance, is used by others to engage in comparisons of the Nazis with different groups and political leaders, rendering the comparison too common to have meaning and, thus, destroying any possible value that could be achieved by this comparison.
6) The near ubiquity of such comparisons (i.e. Godwin’s Law) in status quo undercuts any value to making yet another comparison.
Any one of these functions as an independent reason to vote Con down before even considering his arguments on the accuracy of his claims, as Con conceded that they are all a priori. Con’s best-case scenario here is that voters buy that there is a direct comparison between two instances of dehumanization and how they were achieved. At no point in this round has Con responded to the list of contextual differences between the two (see: absence of fascist regime, a mandate, symbols of oppression, herding into camps and mass gassings, enforcement via military power), but even if you grant him the accuracy of this comparison and the value of learning about it (which Con only assumes – he never states how anyone should use this information), the above drops establish it as utterly insufficient to meet Con’s burden.
Before I get into my constructive points, it must be clarified precisely how Con’s arguments fail to meet his burdens, as this all stems from internal inconsistency.
Con wants to have his cake and eat it, too, i.e. he wants to make specific claims that exclude large swaths of context, and simultaneously wants those comparisons to inform the broader context that these two groups represent. Yet, Con has conceded that much of the contexts of the Nazi and pro-choice position are starkly different. No matter how many similarities Con selects from the two sides of this comparison, these differences establish that their contexts are distinct. That is the basis for much of my argument, yet Con never directly addresses this point. So, let’s look at the individual points that establish this.
Under my constructive arguments, I showed those specific pieces of context that were missing from this comparison. This is why riductio ad Hitlerium applies to Con’s argument. Further, I established why the issue of context is unavoidable for any fact-based comparison under The Importance of Context: this comparison only has value by “contaminat[ing] the pro-choice position with the context of Nazi Germany”. Con decries the very same context contamination from pro-choice people (he really seems to love the tu quoque fallacy), so he accepts that context is important, meaning that his only choice is to argue that these contextual differences do not exist.
In this, he clearly fails. In The Physical, I showed that physical effects of the unborn on the mother and the physical dependence of the unborn on the mother “clearly separate the circumstances of the unborn and the Jews, as well as the Nazis and pregnant, pro-choice mothers.” This is a factual difference; the circumstances, despite Con’s assertions to the contrary, are clearly different. Even if both are characterized by dehumanization, that context establishes that the rights of either the mother or the unborn will always be at odds, while the rights of the Nazis and those they killed did not feature a similar dynamic. Con drops all of this.
Con’s only topical argument, Law, is made ineffectual by these contextual omissions. As I said previously, “the laws Con cites for Nazi Germany had the stated, sole goal of removing rights from citizens. By contrast, Roe v. Wade established both the rights of pregnant women and the rights of the unborn by comparison.” Con dismisses this without directly addressing the point, charging that the removal of rights from the unborn is the same as removal from a subset of citizens. This, of course, ignores the context: the latter is a loss of comparative rights, where either mothers or the unborn will lose rights regardless, while the former is simply stripping one subset of the population of their rights. Instead of acknowledging this, Con digs down into the logic used to decide the case of Roe V. Wade, which is off topic. Flaws in Blackmun’s opinion are non-sequiturs, even if they influenced public opinion, because, as I will discuss once again shortly, they are not representative of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position is not established by any individuals, even those sitting on the USSC. Con also argues that there are similarities, though none of these detract from the glaring contextual differences. Again, the existence of similarities does not erase the differences, yet Con’s position relies on those differences being minor or inconsequential. They are not, no matter how much he deflects.
Con also drops my point on Genocide vs. Choice, where I established the differences between “the Nazis… imposing their views on a minority using fear tactics and military power” as part of “a systemic, coercive project of racial purity… they wanted… populations to disappear” and “pro-choice people… engaging in personal choices based on what’s legally allowed… and continu[ing] to have children.” Con cannot wave away these differences, particularly as the main justification for his argument is that we can compare how the Nazis and pro-choice people achieve their ends. Con also cannot pretend that there’s no difference between affording rights to those who never had them in the future (which pro-choice people argue should be the case for the unborn) and permanently stripping people who had rights they already had (which the Nazis did).
The remainder of this debate is almost entirely non-topical, as I established with my overviews.
In my OV1, I explained why issues regarding the morality of abortion are not relevant to this debate by definition, and in my OV3, I explained why arguments like these fail to meet his burdens. Instead of addressing either of these, he asserts that he has met some hidden burden not found in the resolution. Despite abortion not being mentioned in the resolution, despite the definitions clearly establishing that this is a debate on the comparison between the Nazis and the pro-choice position, Con has spent large swaths of this debate arguing that the morality of abortion is somehow key to this debate. The existence of the word “should” does not magically make every moral argument valid. At best, you might buy that this establishes some possibility of a factual comparison between two circumstances of discrimination and dehumanization, though even if that’s the case (more on that shortly), Con will only have established that a comparison can be made, not that one should be made. Refer to my OV3 and The Importance of Context for why.
In my OV2 (and on Con's Language argument), I argued that the pro-choice position is distinct from any mindsets or patterns that crop up among pro-choice people: “Neither mindsets nor patterns among people who support a given stance are emblematic of the stance itself, nor do they establish the intentions behind said position” and “[p]atterns and mindsets are not equivalent to the pro-choice position”. Con argues that the language used by pro-choice people is emblematic of the mindset, but again, a pro-choice mindset is not indicative of the pro-choice position. Con even spends about half of this round quoting online articles, debates, other media, my own views and apparently digging to find an old debate of mine on DDO (an interesting re-read, though my views have changed from… wow, was that really 6 years ago?). All of this can be thrown out. The sample size is far too small to call it representative of the entire pro-choice population, but even if it was, they are not representative of the pro-choice position. No matter how many instances Con cherry-picks, as every example he gives merely shows what language pro-choice people use, and not what the pro-choice position is, which was established in the definitions and includes none of the language Con cites from other sources.
This also applies to Con’s Culture argument, for which Con includes plenty of examples to show that pro-choice people are “liberal leftists”, but once again fails to establish any connection between propaganda and the pro-choice position. Use of propaganda only establishes that some people are using these tactics, not that the pro-choice position is inextricable from them. Con also consistently fails to establish any link between this propaganda and the propaganda used by the Nazis in the last 3 rounds, meaning that he has not even upheld his own comparison with this point.
Con wanted to have a different debate than the resolution and definitions call for, and unfortunately for him, his arguments simply do not do enough to show that he was successful in negating the resolution as it stands.
Con’s argument relies on one reason, and one reason only, for why the comparison should be made (the remainder of his points focus on why it could be made): he claims he can inform readers of “how language, laws, and culture can adversely sway a society into adopting unjust ‘rights’/practices and dehumanizing the unborn just like the Jew.” All of these points are built on context: he must demonstrate that the language, laws and culture of pro-choice people represent the pro-choice position; he must show that the methods used by the Nazis and those by pro-choice people are largely indistinguishable; he must show that their aims – the actual purposes of these pursuits – are objectively very similar. As I have shown, all these claims are questionable at best, if not outright false. However, none of them must be completely wrong. Substantial differences deplete the comparison of any value, reducing it to a comparison between clearly unlike entities. Con’s argument relies on the broad applicability of his comparison being meaningful, and he has yet to demonstrate that it is. And if this comparison is not meaningful, then none of his arguments affirm the resolution.
Back to Con.
Round 4
Thank you Whiteflame for your willingness to debate!
i) What is the focus of the debate?
ii) What is the more reasonable case?
ii) What is the more reasonable case?
i) The Pro-Choice Position Should Not be Compared with Language or Actions Used by the Nazis.
Why not?
Pro suggests to do so automatically disqualifies comparison. (reductio ad Hitlerium)
ii) Pros two a priori conditions:1) Comparisons do not convey a greater understanding of the issue, and2) Comparisons do not induce improved discussion of the problem.
a) A comparison can improve understanding and does in this case. By discussing we learn the dangers of behaviours and conditioned thinking (mindsets), leading to oppressive unjust actions, laws, policies, and politics. Failure to diagnose a problem perpetuates it.
b) The words "should not" are a moral issue (OV1), an ethical prescription, despite Pros denial. Something wrong is happening with the pro-choice and Nazi position. Pro ignores arguments that grave injustice takes place while pumping up his own.
c) There are particular comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Pro-choice without invoking charges of reductio ad Hitlerium or Godwin's Law.
d) To understand moral wrongs, in which killing innocent human beings is one, comparisons should be allowed.
***
The heart of the comparison is dehumanization (see Description).
Pro fails to show dehumanization is uncommon in both targeted groups, even suggesting in OV3,
"you might buy...some possibility of a factual comparison between two circumstances of discrimination and dehumanization."
People understand it does take place. Pros argument is outrageous that the comparison is invalid. Reasons why:
1) The unborn is a human being, as is the Jew.
2) The woman has a licence to kill innocent human beings, the Nazis too.
3) Both positions, pro-choice and the Nazis, mistreat a group(s) of human beings. Justice is not applied equally.
4) Negative language, in both cases, devalues a group of human beings. (i.e., likened to animals, diseases, not fully human, not as valuable, objectified)
5) Both cultures enacted unjust laws (do not recognize every human being with intrinsic worth).
6) There is shaping in both cultures through propaganda via the media, education, the political system, the legal system, entertainment, etc., to accept this injustice.
Can the voter deny these six points as reasonable, valid, and evident in both cultures? If reasonable, please consider voting for Con.
Pro continues to understate these points, dismissing comparisons as fallacious, invoking reductio ad Hitlerium or Godwin's Law.
1) Are there particular valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and the pro-choice position without invoking reductio ad Hitlerium or Godwin's Law? If not, consider how any comparison can be made?
2) Ask yourself,
a) Is showing commonalities of discrimination, devaluation, and dehumanization done by both the Nazis and pro-choice true or false?
b) Is it factual that human beings (in both cases) are being dehumanized, marginalized, treated as less than human and put to death?
c) Have negative language, laws, and cultural group-think harmed millions of human beings?
If answering yes, please vote Con!
Rebuttal
Pros two a priori conditions:
1) Convey a greater understanding of the issue,
2) Induce improved discussion of the issue.
1) Met! Condition 1 focuses on the wrong of dehumanization, citing the best known, most well-documented example - Nazi Germany. That example is applied to the pro-choice position to better understand what is happening in both cases.
Con argues there is no
"fascist regime, a mandate, symbols of oppression, herding into camps and mass gassings, enforcement by military power" comparisons.
While America is not fascist, it employs oppressive measures to the unborn.
The mandate is to give the woman a choice on whether to kill innocent human beings.
The symbol of oppression is abortion clinics where almost a million unborn are killed every year.
Just like Nazi Germany, the enforcement is through unjust laws.
2) The discussion or debate opens our thinking to consider the evil taking place in both examples. The aim; to change unfair practices and injustices.
***
Pros Six Charges of Non Rebuttal
1) "The comparison is a staggeringly inefficient means to presenting Con's stance on abortion."
No. The argument is efficient.
a) Validity depends on what is being compared. The argument focuses on a specific moral wrong (dehumanization), the killing and devaluing of innocent human beings. Such a comparison is manifest through language, laws, and culture.
b) The comparison needs making. It shows an injustice taking place in both examples, highlighting the moral wrong with such preferences. Dehumanizing innocent groups of human beings is unjust whenever it takes place.
c) The Nazi example is perhaps the most widely known and documented as a moral wrong.
d) Dehumanization documents how this evil is once again taking place in mass numbers.
2) "This is an inherently emotionally inciting comparison, pushing pro-choice advocates away from an abortion debate. Comparisons that push others away from a debate should be discarded. Con concedes this harm by calling out others for the same behavior."
a) No doubt, there can be a passionate plea to consider what is killed and why it matters.
b) Pro-choice advocates already turn a blind eye. Their stance is often guilt-ridden. They ignore the moral wrong pointed out.
c) The scale of human lives lost rivals very few other comparisons.
d) Injustice matters and should not happen. Justifying one group as not as valuable opens the flood gates to do the same with others, like the elderly [1] [2], the disabled, newborns (i.e., West Virginia).
3) "The comparison incites pro-life groups to physically harm those they deem as immoral, further shutting down discussion. One example of this is Shelly Shannon, who tried to kill Dr. George Tiller in 1993. She justified attempted murder by saying she believed that it was "justifiable force" to end the lives of abortion providers, whom she compared to Hitler.[3]"
a) Yes, a few radicals breaking the law is an injustice. Such actions are equally wrong.
Pros source lists,
"At least 11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993, including the Colorado attack." [3]
The number of unborn human beings killed in America from 1993-2015 --> 27,929,990 [4](Guttmacher Institute) [5]
b) Granted, Hitler's kind of "justifiable force" should not be used.
c) I am advocating for not killing innocent human beings. My comparison of the pro-choice position to Hitler and the Nazis is a specific one, the moral wrong of how two groups justify killing by dehumanizing their victims.
d) The root cause of the pro-choice mindset (dehumanization, devaluation, discrimination) needs to be addressed and changed. That root cause results in the unjust taking of human life from groups of human beings. Denying that is happening is unreasonable (my six points).
4) "Excluding any substantial context from the comparison damages opportunities to understand both the Nazis and the pro-choice position."
There is a substantial context. Both positions continually diminish, ignore, and misunderstand innocent human life, the unborn/the Jew.
5) "That excluded context, as well as the dismissal of its importance, is used by others to engage in comparisons of the Nazis with different groups and political leaders, rendering the comparison too common to have meaning and, thus, destroying any possible value that could be achieved by this comparison."
While some aspects could be so, Pro cannot deny three things,
a) The specific comparison - dehumanization.
b) The killing of innocent human beings.
c) The killing is an injustice. A group of human beings do not have equal rights to life, liberty, justice.
Those three points are a snapshot of Nazi Germany.
6) "The near ubiquity of such comparisons (i.e. Godwin's Law) in status quo undercuts any value to making yet another comparison."
That is not true.
a) There is value in using the Nazi example as a comparison in this particular case. Permitting dehumanization anywhere should not be tolerated, or justice is lost.
b) Everyone of Pros six points neglects the unborn. Pro does what the majority of liberal-minded [6] pro-choice [7] [8] advocates do to some extent. Pro does not consider the unborn important enough by ignoring this valid comparison.
***
Pros charge includes,
"I established why the issue of context is unavoidable for any fact-based comparison under The Importance of Context."
In R3, I contextually demonstrated that dehumanizing the unborn is familiar in pro-choice articles and positions. The Nazi position devalued the Jew. That is the context. Pro-choice do precisely what the Nazis did.
1) They single out a group of human beings,
2) Make killing that group contingent on the choice of another group,
3) Applying unjust tools to do so - the law, partisan politics, partisan media.
Countless examples of this dehumanizing language are available. Is Pro aware he is guilty of infrahumanization or dehumanization in the past and present? Eg.
"I will state that viability outside the womb is my cutoff for open abortions (so around 22 weeks). There's a good debate over what viability is, but this seems to be the cutoff." [9] (R2)
Pro is willing to place a "cutoff" point as to when it is justifiable in killing an innocent human being (one that has done no wrong). That cutoff point is not when it becomes an individual human being but at a stage of its growth. That again shows that he devalues human beings based not only on them being human but contingent on their development level. Would he employ cutoff points with other human beings based on their development? If so, applying the level of growth could equally apply to him over other human beings. Can he demonstrate that his IQ is equal in growth to Christopher Michael Langan's [10], or should Langan determine whether Pro lives or dies based on development rather than being human?
"In The Physical,...the physical dependence of the unborn on the mother “clearly separate the circumstances of the unborn and the Jews, as well as the Nazis and pregnant, pro-choice mothers...the rights of either the mother or the unborn will always be at odds.”
a) Again, Pro values the mother's needs, neglecting and discriminating against the unborn's needs. Likewise, the Nazis need against the Jews.
b) "Physical dependency" is a non-sequitur. Pro would not apply his "dependency" clause to kill the newborn or toddler.
c) The comparison is not about the "physical nature" or appearance but about a universal principle - injustice.
d) Pro gives the unborn fewer rights, even stripping it of the most basic natural right, the right to life.
Law
"Roe v. Wade established both the rights of pregnant women and the rights of the unborn by comparison...Flaws in Blackmun’s opinion are non-sequiturs."
a) Roe v. Wade diminished the unborn's rights. The woman chooses whether it lives or dies, overriding the unborn's natural right to life.
b) Blackmun's opinions and misrepresentations became law, unjustly affecting the unborn and how it was treated and understood.
"cherry-pick elements"
My comparison is specific - dehumanization. That comparison can and should be made.
"vote Con down before even considering his arguments on the accuracy of his claims.."
If not considered, there is no fairness here.
My argument is consistent - dehumanization and injustices. It is more reasonably the case. Please vote Con, vote for life!
I would also like to thank PGA2.0 for inviting me to debate this.
I enjoyed doing it.
My goal for this round is to simply explain what happened and why
voters should vote Pro in this debate.
Let us start
simple: Con’s choice to drop much of the case made under my OV3 is
damning to his case. Con concedes that each point is a priori, meaning that
all these points function as independent reasons to vote Pro before even
considering Con’s argument. I summarized all six of these points last round (which
Con dropped in every previous round and has chosen to unfairly rebut in the
final round, which runs contrary to his own rules [4th Round -->
Rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments]). Despite
these rebuttals being abusive, I will address them.
1) The
comparison is a staggeringly inefficient means to presenting Con's stance on
abortion.
None of
Con’s rebuttals express how his argument is efficient. Being “valid” or “widely
known” does not make a comparison efficient, and Con concedes that the extensive Nazi history he delved into previously (R1, [1]) is neither efficient nor beneficial to understanding abortion as an issue. Buy the argument I made all the
way back in R1, which Con never addressed: “If Con wants to convey the
importance of these lives by comparison to others, then he could easily do so
without invoking a fascist regime, and that inefficiency alone is enough to
dismiss the comparison.”
2) This is
an inherently emotionally inciting comparison, pushing pro-choice advocates
away from an abortion debate. Comparisons that push others away from a debate
should be discarded. Con concedes this harm by calling out others for the same
behavior.
Con’s only
direct response to this is to say that pro-choice advocates already are not
listening. Voters, you have two choices. You can believe him, making the
comparison worthless because it will never reach the people whose minds could
potentially be changed by making it, or you can believe me, and recognize that
these comparisons do active harm to any effort to engage with pro-choice
people. It does not matter which of us you believe because he either does
nothing to advance education or makes things worse, neither of which improve discussion of abortion.
3) The
comparison incites pro-life groups to physically harm those they deem as immoral,
further shutting down discussion.
Con wholly
concedes this and my example of Shelly Shannon, only minimizing the value of this
harm. If we can address the pro-choice mindset without the comparison (believe it or not, it can be done!), then the comparison does nothing but cause physical harm to abortion providers. Invoking
Hitler will not stop people from supporting abortion rights but it will continue
to incite individuals to attack abortion clinics and providers, shutting down
discussion.
4) Excluding
any substantial context from the comparison damages opportunities to understand
both the Nazis and the pro-choice position.
Refer to my
points under The Importance of Context, The Physical, and Genocide
vs. Choice (more on them shortly). Con has not established substantial
overlap between their contexts.
5) That
excluded context, as well as the dismissal of its importance, is used by others
to engage in comparisons of the Nazis with different groups and political
leaders, rendering the comparison too common to have meaning and, thus,
destroying any possible value that could be achieved by this comparison.
Con concedes
this, saying that “some aspects” of the excluded context, which he has
repeatedly dismissed as unimportant, could render this comparison moot. Cherry-picking
some points of comparison does not erase the missing context.
6) The near
ubiquity of such comparisons (i.e. Godwin's Law) in status quo undercuts any value
to making yet another comparison.
Con drops
this. The point is that comparisons to the Nazis are so common that any value,
even from a very apt comparison, is automatically lost because the moment you say,
“this is like the Nazis,” you’re tuned out. Con has consistently failed to
address that point, with each response being a non-sequitur.
Voters, if
you think I won any of these six points, the debate ends here. Stop here and vote Pro.
In case you need more convincing, I'll go back to Con's points. All of his points rely on the idea that all Con has to do is present this as a moral issue to be topical. Despite his claims to contrary, my OV1 did
not establish that “should not” is a moral issue. My OV3 established
what “should not” means: that the comparison both improves understanding and enhances
discussion of abortion. Pointing out that two moral wrongs exist does not mean
they are comparable, nor does it meet either threshold.
Con’s points are dominated by arguments about the immorality of
abortion, I have refused to engage in that debate, as it is entirely non-topical.
This was clearly established in my OV1, which Con has largely responded
to by claiming the importance of abortion as a topic rather than establishing
that it meets the threshold of topicality for this debate. I am sure that has
frustrated Con, yet he has continued relying on this argument to the final
round, even ending with “Please vote Con, vote for life!” I have said it before,
and I will say it again: being pro-life or pro-choice has nothing to do with
this debate. You can find abortion morally reprehensible and still find this
comparison problematic. Pro wasted his time on these points.
Using my OV2, I have also pointed out why many of his
points, particularly his Language and Culture points, are
non-topical: Con conflates the mindsets of pro-choice people with the
pro-choice position. He even doubles down on this, pointing to both my
and many other individuals’ perspectives on the unborn and declaring that they
represent the entire pro-choice position. At no point has Con established that pro-choice mindsets and the pro-choice position are the same, rendering
these points entirely non-topical.
We can even throw in Pro’s Law argument at this point, as he
is conflating the results of the Roe v. Wade USSC decision (which established
comparative rights, not a removal of rights) and Justice Blackmun’s opinion (FYI,
the USSC rules on the laws, it does not codify them) with the entire pro-choice
position. By focusing on these two, Con lost his opportunity to make this point
topical.
With all these points rendered non-topical, Con’s central defense
of his case fails. He summarized it perfectly this round: “By discussing we
learn the dangers of behaviours and conditioned thinking (mindsets), leading to
oppressive unjust actions, laws, policies, and politics. Failure to diagnose a
problem perpetuates it.” Each of the above points – Language, Culture, Law – are necessary to establish this statement as accurate. If any of
them are inaccurate, then what is learned is similarly inaccurate. Aside from
the clear lack of application to the pro-choice position, this argument
fails because it is built on an inherent contradiction in Con’s argument, which
I explained (and Con dropped) last round:
“Con wants to have his cake and eat it, too, i.e. he wants to make
specific claims that exclude large swaths of context, and simultaneously wants
those comparisons to inform the broader context that these two groups
represent. Yet, Con has conceded that much of the contexts of the Nazi and
pro-choice position are starkly different. No matter how many similarities Con
selects from the two sides of this comparison, these differences establish that
their contexts are distinct.”
I’m not surprised Con dropped this because he has consistently
dropped points of context that I’ve established as invaluable under The
Importance of Context, The Physical, and Genocide vs. Choice.
These drops are each independently
sufficient to invalidate any educational value for Con's comparison. Here’s a
sampling of those concessions: the Nazis use fear tactics, military power,
coercion, attempting to eliminate whole racial and religious groups, using a
fascist regime for enforcement, use of symbols of oppression, herding into
camps and mass gassings. These were all essential to Hitler’s success, integral to their
actions, laws, policies, and politics, and none of them are applicable to the pro-choice
position. On the other side, Roe v. Wade established rights by
comparison, i.e. the rights of the unborn vs. the rights of the pregnant woman.
This results, in part, from the reality that there are, as I previously showed, “physical effects of the unborn
on the mother and the physical dependence of the unborn on the mother.” This
is a clear and demonstrable difference between how these legal protections were
derived, yet Con fails to address it. Dehumanization can exist in both cases,
but Con can only achieve the value he claims by ignoring these large swaths of opposing
context. By
excluding these, he devalues the comparison, rendering any possible educational
value for understanding or exploring either side of the comparison moot.
Conclusion:
The easy
choice here is to vote Pro based on the six points at the top of this round that
establish a clear and present harm to this comparison. No matter how valid his
comparison is, it fails on all six points, each of which are independent reasons to vote Con based on the inherent harms this comparison causes or its inherent failure to convey anything meaningful. If that did not sway
you, then by now, you have clearly seen just how poorly Con upheld his burdens
in this debate. If he fails to improve understanding or discussion of abortion
as an issue, or, worse, actively harms both by conflation of a position and the
mindsets of some of those who hold that position, then it destroys any validity
or value to this comparison. Buy any of this, as Con’s drops and concessions demand you do, and
you must vote Pro.
NOTICE: Only two days remain for the voting window!
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
Thank you for voting! It’s a long debate to read through and I appreciate your taking the time.
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.
--- 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.
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.
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.
No worries. I don't want to win conduct for that.
I thought about it and apologize. You win the Conduct category!
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.
"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.
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.
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/
I look forward to it!
(^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.
Looks interesting!
Then I look forward to your comments after the debate on these two comments.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting statement. I'm running it through my mind. Are you agreeing (i.e., "glad") the unborn deserve rights equal to the newborn?
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."