From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:04:04 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
>< Mathew Zank compares pro-lifers to Nazis>

>I don't like this practice of calling people Nazis. I hate especially the
>rhetorical "be (pro-life/pro-choice) or else be a nazi" message.

I would agree that calling pro-lifers Nazis is unwarranted. I can also
see the comparison that Mathew is trying to make. I think he is making
the comparison based on the fact that the Nazis were a fanatical party
(read the core of the pro-life movement) who strongly and openly supported
a popular cause, the rebuilding of Germany after WWI (pro-lifers want
to save those CuteWarmFuzzyUnbornBabies), goals which many can subscribe
to. However, they also had an agenda that many were not aware of that
they actually intended to go much further than they publically stated,
although they hinted at it at various times (such as keep Germany strong
proud and pure), but I imagine most thought this was just rhetoric.
There have been indications from the pro-life camp that BC should be
outlawed, that education should teach that the genital area only functions
to excrete urine and that to do anything else with it is bad (ie touch,
look, etc...). They want to implement this through a groundswell of
political support, based on the more popular theme of stopping abortion,
yet label all politicians who support any type of abortions as against
their cause, as being pro-choice, leaving only those who support their
entire agenda in office. These parallels between Nazi Germany and the
pro-life movement are what I believe he intended, the subjugation of
an entire nation by a fanatical group which gains support by supporting
an initially popular position, but which really had its own private
agenda which they are not afraid to implement.

Nobody, I'm sure, would ever think that someone running for office in
an ethnic majority country who espouses "let's keep zeebob pure," would
mean "let's close our borders and kill off anyone who's not zeebob."
I personally feel that were the pro-life camp to ever get into power
that my personal freedoms would be in serious danger of being significantly
reduced, since the core of this group has supported other movements
such as limiting free speech, including everything from erotic art work
that shows nudity (or suggests it) to outright pornography to classic
works of art including "Catcher in the Rye" and "Lord of the Flies."
They also wish to ban rock music in its entirety, if they could, but
they would probably settle for rap and heavy metal initially. For these
reasons alone, I would support anyone who ran against a supporter of
pro-life, because to invade a woman's privacy on an issue so personal
as pregnancy and her choice to carry to term or end it so callously,
it is not a far step to see that these same people would have little
problem in taking away freedoms such as what you can listen to, or read,
or see.

>There are reasonable pro-lifers (Joy Haftel, Bill Overpeck) to
>pro-choicers, and there should be "nice" pro-choicers to those holding the
>other position. Treating everyone on the other side of a debate as some
>homogeneous evil party is, IMHO, wrong.

Yes, there are, however they are almost pro-choice (at least what I've
seen of Joy's opinions, Bill I've not read too much from), and they
do not, as far as I can tell (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong :), want
to force their opinions on everyone through legislation.

Ron.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc