stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice) (02/11/86)
Line eater, line eater, eat up my line. . . (to the tune of "Matchmaker")
There have been several articles over the past few weeks requesting
or demanding that those who oppose abortion stop referring to the
Holocaust in their postings. I can understand why supporters of
abortion don't want the Holocaust referred to. I can also understand
why a recent writer asked that such postings not also be posted
to _net.religion.jewish_. I'm not sure that cross-posting is necessary
or wise. I am sure, however, that the Holocaust should continue to
be mentioned in the context of abortion.
Although the Holocaust is usually considered to have been an assault
on *one* group, Jews were not the only victims. In fact, Jews were not
even the first victims! The methods used for murdering millions of
Jews were developed in killing centers for the chronically sick.
Dr. Leo Alexander, a Boston psychiatrist, was a consultant to the
Secretary of War and on duty with the office of the Chief of Counsel for
War Crimes in Nuremberg in 1946 and 1947. In 1949, the _New England
Journal of Medicine_ published his paper, "Medical Science Under
Dictatorship" (241:39-47, July 14, 1949). In it, Dr. Alexander
reported:
Irrespective of other ideological trappings, the guiding philosophic
principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has
been Hegelian in that what has been considered "rational utility"
and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical,
and religious values. . .
Medical science in Nazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend
particularly in the following enterprises: the mass extermination of
the chronically sick in the interest of saving "useless" expenses to
the community as a whole; the mass extermination of those considered
socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the
individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal
within the ruling group; and the ruthless use of "human experimental
material" for medico-military research. . .
It started with the acceptance of the attitude basic in the euthanasia
movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. . .
All of this did not begin with Hitler, either. The word "euthanasia" is
found as early as 1920 in a book published in Germany by Karl Binding and
Alfred Hoche, _The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value_.
Again quoting from Dr. Alexander:
[Before Hitler came to power in 1933] a propaganda barrage was directed
against the traditional, compassionate, nineteenth-century attitudes
towards the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian,
Hegelian point of view. Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with
chronic mental illnesses was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian
psychiatrists in 1931.
Dr. Alexander's list of those who were killed reminds me of people
I know: the aged (my parents); the infirm (a blind man and a paraplegic,
both of whom work here); the senile (my 90-year-old aunt, who loves and
is loved by her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren and
who still plays golf, but is increasingly confused); the mentally
retarded (the son of friends -- the boy is active and cheerful despite
Down's Syndrome); and defective children. As World War II approached,
the dragnet widened to include epileptics, World War I amputees,
children with poorly-formed ears, and bed wetters. Dr. Alexander
reports that a total of 275,000 people were murdered in killing centers
dedicated to elimination of these undesirables.
The language used to whitewash what was occurring is instructive: the
organization responsible for the killing of children was called the
"Realm's Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to
Heredity and Constitution." Victims were taken to the killing centers
by "The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick." Dr. Alexander reports
that to reduce the burden these murders posed to the treasury, "The
Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care" was "in charge of collecting
the cost of the killings from the relatives without, however, informing
them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of
death was falsified."
Under the heading, "The Early Change in Medical Attitudes," Dr. Alexander
warned that ALL OF THIS STARTED WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ATTITUDE THAT
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A LIFE NOT WORTHY TO BE LIVED. The Holocaust
is of great importance as an illustration and a warning to us of the
consequences of seemingly "rational" decisions. As such, it is not the
property of any one group -- the lesson is a lesson for all of humanity,
just as the loss was a loss for all of humanity.
Those who oppose abortion should continue to refer to the Holocaust as
an example of what man can do and has done to his fellow man. It is all
too easy to get into rarified, theoretical arguments about abortion (or
any other subject) and forget that the philosophical underpinnings for
our actions have consequences that we cannot always foresee. Also,
unlike arguments that start, "In Scripture, God says. . .", the Holocaust
cannot be lightly dismissed as simply a figment of unscientific beliefs.
I would encourage all of you who are interested in abortion (presumably
everyone who has read this far) to read _Whatever Happened to the Human
Race?_ (Koop, C. Everett, M.D., and Francis A. Schaeffer, Crossway Books,
Westchester, Illinois, 1983, ISBN 0-89107-291-8). Those who oppose
abortion will gain new insights into the roots of the present situation.
Those who support abortion will at least gain a better understanding of
why those who oppose abortion do so with such tenacity.
The Holocaust occurred at a specific point in history, in a country that
still exists, killing people whom we can know by name. The Holocaust
is a *fact* -- a great, ugly blotch on history that sounds a warning
to those who believe in God and to those who choose to ignore Him. We
ignore the Holocaust at our peril.
Steve Rice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ihnp4 | uw-beaver | hplabs | decvax}!tektronix!videovaxcs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/14/86)
[Without quoting anything...] Holocaust (and euthenagia) were targeted against specific groups with well defined paremters. ALL of the people subject to euthenagia were already born and had exibited the "offending" characteristics. Abortions, on the other hand do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, future religious and sexual orientations, or possible physical, genetic or mental defects. All fetuses are aborted equaly... Also, NOTE : Euthenagia and Holocausts are directed against an entire group of people with no exclusions. Only if the PRO-CHOICE side advocated total and unconditional destruction of all fetuses THEN you could equate abortions to genocide. The differences are all too apparent to a clear mind! DISCLAMER: The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of UCLA or it's emloyees and faculty. The might not even be mine for all I know... +---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- | "VIOLATORS WILL BE TOAD !" |From the steam tunnels of UCLA | The Dungeon Police | Oleg Kiselev, student again +---------------------------------------+ ...{ WORLD }!ucla-cs!cs111olg
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (02/20/86)
I cannot fathom why people in this newsgroup continually equate the abortion issue with euthanasia, the holocaust, etc. The basic difference in position between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" factions as I have observed them on the net is not whether murder is right or wrong, but rather the question, "is abortion murder?" Any comparisons to mercy killing, the Crusades, Son of Sam, and other acts involving killing are not connected in any way to this issue. And then there's the response, "If abortion is legal, then what's to stop people from killing the old and infirm, etc., ad nauseum. This is like saying, "If I can drive a car, what's to stop me from eating cauliflower." This is a non-sequiter. It reminds me of the main argument against marijuana, "That it leads to the use of stronger drugs." This may or may not be fact, but the logic is faulty. Anything MAY lead to anything! Note: I do not condone drug use. I am trying to make a point. If a standpoint is defensible on its own grounds, using rational arguments and documented facts, why oh why must these tangential issues be raised, and emotionally loaded logic used? e.g. "Nazis were bad, Nazis did abortions, therefore abortions are bad." This is clearly ridiculous, easily illustrated since by the same logic, "All abortionists are Nazis" is also true. Present your evidence. Preserve the memory of the Holocaust. But please please please please PLEASE do not equate things that are not equal. Dave "just the facts, Ma'am" Richards
pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) (02/24/86)
In article <895@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >I cannot fathom why people in this newsgroup continually equate the abortion >issue with euthanasia, the holocaust, etc. The abortion issue is not being equated with euthanasia, nor the holocaust. Such are merely being referenced in an attempt to point out similar situations and similar justifications. > >The basic difference in position between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" >factions as I have observed them on the net is not whether murder is right >or wrong, but rather the question, "is abortion murder?" There are many differing viewpoints which make a person consider him or herself "Pro-Choice". They include: - Is an unborn infant a person, such as myself? - Is there such a thing as a life worth living? (Or, more importantly, is the life of the fetus worth living?) - Does a mother have the right to do anything she wants with her body? With somebody else's body while it's in her body? (Again, is it really someone else??) Does a mother have the right to do anything she wants to at all, irrespective of how it affects others? (Again, what if it is decided (by me) that those others aren't really people??) Indeed, the question of "is abortion murder" is primary, but it has roots in the question of what constitutes murder, and when murder may be permissible. It is a widely held view that abortion is murder, but some still feel that this murder is a fine and humanitarian thing. Again, the parallelism to the Holocaust and to euthanasia is clear--many feel that mercy-killing is humanitarian, and the Nazis in charge of rounding up the Jews, as fine people as they were still felt that they were doing a humanitarian act. > >Any comparisons to mercy killing, the Crusades, Son of Sam, and other acts >involving killing are not connected in any way to this issue. > >And then there's the response, "If abortion is legal, then what's to stop >people from killing the old and infirm, etc., ad nauseum. This is like >saying, "If I can drive a car, what's to stop me from eating cauliflower." >This is a non-sequiter. As I said before, it boils down to your reasons for allowing the abortions to take place. Most of the same arguments are also used to justify mercy-killing. The Crudades were for different reasons altogether, and are a blotch in history. Son of Sam was a crazed killer, yet I could say that he relieved many from a life of suffering on this overcrowded planet, and did society a favour. > >It reminds me of the main argument against marijuana, "That it leads to >the use of stronger drugs." This may or may not be fact, but the logic >is faulty. Anything MAY lead to anything! > >Note: I do not condone drug use. I am trying to make a point. The statement that marijuana leads to the use of stronger drugs is based on a drug user becoming bored with the high which marijuana provides him, and searching for something better, the same way in which life became to dull for him in the first place and he moved on to become a druggie. The logic is faulty only if you ignore all that is implicit. Again, there is a great similarity of thought and of justificative argumentation between many "Pro-Choice" people and those supporting euthanasia, or the Nazis in charge of the holocaust. > >If a standpoint is defensible on its own grounds, using rational arguments >and documented facts, why oh why must these tangential issues be raised, >and emotionally loaded logic used? e.g. "Nazis were bad, Nazis did abortions, >therefore abortions are bad." This is clearly ridiculous, easily illustrated >since by the same logic, "All abortionists are Nazis" is also true. Give me grounds that defend abortion, using rational arguments and documented facts, and I'll give you thousands of replies providing grounds that defend not having abortion generally available, using rational arguments and documented facts. > >Present your evidence. Preserve the memory of the Holocaust. >But please please please please PLEASE do not equate things that are not equal. > > >Dave "just the facts, Ma'am" Richards The facts are that one can rationalize any given action, if one only tries. (Try it--see if you can rationalize, say, a mafia killing, or prostitution, or keeping the blacks suppressed in South Africa. Put yourself in the other person's shoes, and any atrocity doesn't seem nearly as bad.) Paul D. Obeda