|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2009 6:13:43 GMT
It is a pity though that the track has wandered away from holocaust denial. I had a peep at the first link Anna posted in her reply 5 and it is someone's blog, so it is possible that the writer has just followed the information put out by anti-abortion groups, which may well be wrong.
So I'm off to do more research on how holocaust deniers are treated in Germany.... will report back. Though don't trust me either to give an unbiased view!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 3, 2009 16:45:17 GMT
As for Lerle - googling seems to find a lot of polarised views. Thanks for giving us more information about him, Anna, but I won't be writing to him! The article I posted in #10 portrays him as anything but a nice person. It gives a link to Lerle's webiste - so if any German-sepaking posters have time to read it, I'd be glad of feedback. Johannes Lerle has a translation of a letter of his on his website. www.johannes-lerle.com/englische-%C3%BCbersetzung-des-briefes-den-pr%C3%A4ses-der-welsMe, Retarsed and others have been accused of being too long and "multi-faceted" in our posts. Johannes' letter would make our posts look short and to the point, but it might give you a feel for this Fundamentalist Christian-and keep a Bible on hand because he always quotes the Bible!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2009 18:34:55 GMT
Thank you Anna! I have got about a third of the way through, and shall save the rest for later.....(!)
It is just as well for Lerle that demonising the Pope isn't viewed as harshly as holocust denial, or he would be in deep deep wotsit!
Talking of which, I have done a bit of googling but don't properly understand how holocaust denial is defined - but am beginning to get an useasy feeling that the whole thing may be turning int0 a witchunt where no-one is allowed to challenge accepted "facts" . Would this feeling be way out?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 3, 2009 18:50:22 GMT
Spontaneous abortion is the most common early end of pregnancy. We give it the euphemism of miscarriage.
In many cases elective abortion saves an (unwanted) child from a life less than worth living. In others therapeutic abortion can save the life of the woman. Sometimes an embryo is the unfortunate result of an act of rape.
But the lord doesn't provide. The lord does not exist outside the imaginings of the imaginer. If the devout and the religious are so outraged by abortion why don't they take the children on and ensure they get a decent upbringing? Well on the one hand you could be subjecting a child to years of abuse and on the other, well, its so much easier to carp about peoples' morality. From a religious perspective its all about 'guilt'.
The big two religions remain entirely anthropocentric. The right to life, where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 3, 2009 19:22:21 GMT
It is a pity though that the track has wandered away from holocaust denial. I had a peep at the first link Anna posted in her reply 5 and it is someone's blog, so it is possible that the writer has just followed the information put out by anti-abortion groups, which may well be wrong. So I'm off to do more research on how holocaust deniers are treated in Germany.... will report back. Though don't trust me either to give an unbiased view! This thread is about comparing the Holocaust to Abortion and the laws against this in Germany! As you can see some people are offended by abortion being compared to the starvation deaths in Africa too, etc..! Since you seem interested in people like Germar Rudolf ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf ), who are serving prison terms in Germany under the "holocaust denial laws". Maybe the link will inform you. It is a crime in Germany to claim that the gas chamber(s) in Auschwitz is/are fakes, even if you admit that the persecution, enslavement and murder of those people targeted by the nazis was wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 3, 2009 19:36:14 GMT
Thank you Anna! I have got about a third of the way through, and shall save the rest for later.....(!) It is just as well for Lerle that demonising the Pope isn't viewed as harshly as holocust denial, or he would be in deep deep wotsit! Talking of which, I have done a bit of googling but don't properly understand how holocaust denial is defined - but am beginning to get an useasy feeling that the whole thing may be turning int0 a witchunt where no-one is allowed to challenge accepted "facts" . Would this feeling be way out? Skylark, I think it's pretty easy when you have lunatics like Zindel or whatever his name was who deny that ANYONE was put to death in the gas chambers. It's also fairly easy when you get people who take what's known among historians of the period as the 'functionalist' position and take it to extremes and say that essentially it was just an accidental series of massacres in the heat of war. I know my Dad's best friend is a professional historian of the period who's had five books published and been on TV and when he sent his biography of Hitler off to his publisher he was very nervous because his researches (including seeing a secret SS document dating from 1943 which explicitly says that - at that time, remember - 2.4 million Jews had been, in the words of the document, 'liquidated.) His own researches led him to the view that the actual figures of Jews murdered in cold blood was LOWER than generally accepted, at around 4.5 million - still, of course, totally despicable. On the other hand, he concluded that the Roma and Sinti deaths had been UNDERESTIMATED and that our people lost in the region of 800,000 people (rather higher than the usual estimates of around half a million.) Obviously, there are two types of people who deny the holocaust. One of them is mentally ill and on a level with a flat earthist. The other is pro-Nazi and deliberately lying to try to sanitise the regime. My Dad's friend was very nervous about his book because he tried hard to put as positive a spin on Hitler and the Nazis as possible (not out of any sympathy for the man or his ideas, but as a needed corrective to the cartoon-like popular image of Hitler and his movement). Even so, as he made totally clear in his introduction and conclusion, the spectre of mass murder is a stain on the regime that makes ALL of its positive aspects completely meaningless. As for abortion, the only difference between abortion and infanticide is the timing. I would NEVER compare it to the holocaust, particularly as my own uncle was a porajmos survivor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2009 19:52:46 GMT
Agreed,. But some of the websites I've visited suggest that your dad's friend was right to be worried!
Well, Lerle says he never denied the holocaust, and what he said to get himself convicted of the crime I'm still not sure. Whether he is ill or not I couldn't say - but I am disturbed that he is in a position of authority in a church.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Jun 4, 2009 2:00:44 GMT
To me, Hitler murdered over six million people; in our country we have murdered millions of unborn babies for far less reasons than Hitler seemed to have so I can understand the comparison.....some times I think we owe him an apology for the way we so callously murder the innocent unborn who can't even begin to defend themselves. How can you possibly compare the the two though? Whatever you think of abortions, it cannot be compared to a murder of a human being. I accept that embryos have the potential to grow into fully functioning babies and therefore the potential to become fully functional human beings, but until they are born they are unable to live outside the womb. Whatever an abortion is, it is not murder. I have no problem with people who are against abortion carrying a child to full term, but to impose that choice on someone else is just wrong in my book. In my old fashioned book, abortion is simply the murder of an unborn human being. I come from the era when respect for human life encompassed the unborn but that has changed and that is why I can compare the holocaust to abortion......they both were the senseless taking of human life for selfish reasons
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 4, 2009 2:25:37 GMT
Great stuff. so what are you doing to provide women with the support to care for their children as a career equal to any other so that they do not feel obliged to abort their pregnancy to survive? I've seen a hell of a lot more people demonstrating against or for abortion than to pay extra taxes themselves to treat child-rearing as a career equal to any other. Put up or shut up!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 4, 2009 8:30:15 GMT
I come from the era when respect for human life encompassed the unborn but that has changed and that is why I can compare the holocaust to abortion Do you compare spraying agent orange over a Country with the holocaust? What about dropping two atoms bombs on Japan? What about the deaths caused by dropping millions of tonnes of ordanance on Iraq? What about starvation in Africa caused by our failure to excuse African debt? What about the number of deaths caused by climate change? What about the posioning of water/air supplies? What about a million other events that are deliberately engineered that cause the deaths and mutilation of millions of babies (unborn or born). I never see the operation rescue people standing outside the Pentagon, the head quarters of Haliburton or any of the banks demanding the end to killing unborn children and yet they are just as cupable as any abortion clinic. Can you explain why that is?
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Jun 4, 2009 12:54:44 GMT
Great stuff. so what are you doing to provide women with the support to care for their children as a career equal to any other so that they do not feel obliged to abort their pregnancy to survive? I've seen a hell of a lot more people demonstrating against or for abortion than to pay extra taxes themselves to treat child-rearing as a career equal to any other. Put up or shut up! Nobody "put up" for my husband and me when we had two children; we supported them on our own so I don't owe these women one red cent. I'm tired of the same old arguement that we should provide for them; just more pigs at the trough......what happened to personal responsibility? You need a better arguement to support murder; until then, apologize to Hitler because women have murdered far more people than Hitler dreamed of.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 4, 2009 13:58:03 GMT
so I don't owe these women one red cent. I'm tired of the same old arguement that we should provide for them; just more pigs at the trough......what happened to personal responsibility? Ah, but there is the rub. You focus on 'these women', not the babies who you consider are going to victims of what you call 'murder'. What if the price of these children's lives are welfare cheques? Is the life of a child less important to you than the addition of a few quid on your tax bill? It appears that this is about the women, not the children. What about providing welfare for the children? What do you object to most thr abortion or benefits?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 14:30:00 GMT
Women have many reasons for abortion. Some of them may be financial, some of them may be for reasons some here would consider "selfish".
Others just won't feel up the job of parenting. And judging from the condemnation nd criticism we see around us, who can blame them?
There are still others who don't want to bring a baby into a world they see as doomed.
I doubt if any consider what they are carrying to be a baby. A human being to me is something more than a collection of DNA without a developed nervous system. It is a sentient being capable of feeling pain and hunger, lonliness, rejection and despair.
My thoughts go to those living, breathing people who have suffered through disease, disability and especially at the hands of other humans. My thoughts to to the surviving relatives of those who have suffered.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 4, 2009 19:28:09 GMT
You need a better arguement to support murder; until then, apologize to Hitler because women have murdered far more people than Hitler dreamed of. Just women then? All these aborted babies were presumably the products of immaculate conceptions? Or the abortions were carried out against the wishes of all these poor men crying out for their children to be born, offering to pay for all the costs, to take on full responsibility for raising their children?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 4, 2009 20:33:25 GMT
Random Voice has taken a practical approach. Why not focus on the living human beings suffering from lack of food and care and abuse?
Why not do BOTH? Why do so many otherwise intelligent people always think in terms of EITHER/OR instead of BOTH?
I don't think my worst enemy would accuse me of not caring about hunger, poverty or the many ways in which living human beings suffer in this heartless world of us.
I also think that practically EVERY pro-lifer I've met HAS cared about those things and HAS wanted to make a difference in those areas as well.
If a woman gets pregnant by rape or incest or if her life is in danger then I believe that she ought to be free to abort the baby if she wants to.
If she gets drunk and has a quick lay and regrets it the next day then it's a bit more complex but I'd just about allow an abortion in those cases.
What really makes me ANGRY is the SERIAL ABORTIONISTS. Some 'womb donors' have had as many as SEVEN abortions on the NHS and apart from the fact that I'd rather spend my taxes on other things that is callousness and cruelty almost beyond belief!
These filthy whores are MURDERING BITCHES and I think they're a total disgrace to my sex!
Why bring more unwanted children into the world to suffer? That's what happens if you deny women abortion.
Just because the womb donor pretending to be a mother doesn't want the child doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of REAL mothers who'd love to adopt the kid and bring it up with love and see that it thrives and flourishes.
Nor is it true that just because a child was 'unwanted' when it was conceived that the mother can't come to love it once it's born. I've known a couple of young girls who thought about abortion but decided to have the kid and were very glad that they DID.
Nor does it mean that a child has to 'suffer' simply because its womb donor doesn't want it. Give it the chance of life and give it a loving home where it will benefit from proper motherly care.
I don't like comparing the holocaust to abortion. I prefer to compare it with infanticide since in fact the ONLY difference between the two is timing.
It has been shown conclusively that from the very moment of conception, the foetus has the identical DNA, personality and so on, of a human being.
Of course some people will defend murder - and I don't just mean on the abortion issue either - and of course some people will regard anyone who cares about the issue as either a religious nut or some sort of tool of the patriarchy. I've fought harder on this issue with my feminist sisters than on any OTHER one. I've taken more abuse on this issue than I have on my support for the death penalty.
Basically, I'm past caring. I've moved house last week after weeks of chaos and planning and we're STILL in chaos.
I'm trying to get back online a bit more now and I'm really sorry about my enforced absence.
It is just as well for Lerle that demonising the Pope isn't viewed as harshly as holocust denial, or he would be in deep deep wotsit!
How can you demonise the Pope when it's quite clear from the Bible that he's the Antichrist?
ESPECIALLY the PRESENT one.
The holocaust was a totally indefensible mass murder of Jews and Roma because of their ethnic origin.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who hasn't had a compassion bypass to defend it in any way which is the main reason why holocaust deniers exist - to try to sanitise their loathsome political views.
It's NOT the same thing with abortion. I might be pro-life but that does NOT mean that I think there aren't cases where abortion is the lesser of two evils.
I do object to its increasing use - especially among young women - as an alternative to proper contraception but I still feel that it has to have a place as a treatment of last resort.
If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
It won't be the first time that people have called my open-mindedness hypocrisy or mental confusion and it won't be the last.
I'm with Chefmate - human life is sacred and we ought to make it as hard as possible for women to have abortions because we care about the children.
Like I said at the beginning, it doesn't HAVE to be either/or.
It can be BOTH!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 4, 2009 20:35:50 GMT
Riot, I hear what your saying and I've got no time for layabout blokes who won't face up to their own responsibilities.
The funny thing is, though, that I think BOTH partners in the conception of a child OUGHT to be involved and there are loads of cases where the man is willing to bring up the child but the woman says no.
I don't feel it should be just down to her to have the final say; there HAS to be some serious thought given to alternatives first.
Oh God, sometimes I wish I thought in black and white like the extremists on both sides of this debate!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 4, 2009 21:23:20 GMT
Why not do BOTH? Why do so many otherwise intelligent people always think in terms of EITHER/OR instead of BOTH? I don't think my worst enemy would accuse me of not caring about hunger, poverty or the many ways in which living human beings suffer in this heartless world of us. Well that is true about you, but it is evidently untrue across the spectrum. As I have said before there are those on the anti abortion side of the debate would happily see millions of innocent babies killed in matters of foreign policy and/or mass starvation. If a woman gets pregnant by rape or incest or if her life is in danger then I believe that she ought to be free to abort the baby if she wants to. If she gets drunk and has a quick lay and regrets it the next day then it's a bit more complex but I'd just about allow an abortion in those cases. You see, I find that interesting, because the anti abortionists usually talk about the child as a sacred life and yet are willing to make an exception depending on the circumstances of the conception. I find that strange, some people believe that the embryo becomes a human AT conception, if that is so, then surely that child cannot be less human because of the circumstances that the conception took place? Surely the more consistent position here would be to be against all abortion?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 5, 2009 0:02:41 GMT
I think you're right to say that if you believe - as I do - that human life begins at conception it would be more consistent to be totally against abortion in all circumstances.
On the other hand, as a firm supporter of 'situation ethics,' I believe that we have to take tough decisions in life.
If we just follow the book of rules instead of following our heart, our instincts and our innate sense of compassion, we become robots rather than human beings.
Surely one of the definitions of a psychopath is a lack of empathy?
How much less empathy can there be than to wantonly murder another human being because it's not 'convenient' for them to have a baby?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 5, 2009 0:06:23 GMT
As (I think it was Blake) someone once said: 'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.'
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 5, 2009 1:23:34 GMT
I believe firmly in a woman's responsibility for her own fertility. That means both that only she has the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy through or not, and that only she is responsible for the result. There was a time when 'feminist' meant exactly that position, of women rejecting belief that they should expect a man to be their servant and provide for them if they chose him to make them pregnant. For a long time now, 'feminist' has actually meant traditional girl holding a man responsible for her decisions about her own body and to provide for all her needs as if she were too stupid to understand what causes pregnancy, too dim to take any measures against it or to ask a man too, or too immature to take responsibility for her own decisions.
'Feminist' does not mean the 95% of women who know what they're doing and take it for granted that they control their own destiny and fertility; it means the 5% of spoilt brat maturity-retarded 'girlies' rejecting all adult responsibility for an idealised baby-doll early 1950s helplessness where men take all the responsibility and decisions for them because feminists are just incompetent child-women incapable of even asking a man to use a condom to control their own fertility if they are too dim-witted to control it for themselves.
Women wanted freedom from having to depend on the man they chose to impregnate them for financial support. That freedom resulted in double responsibility that men do not usually face because it did not change society in general to recognise women's right to bear children on a par with men's traditional activities. In response, feminists want to return to mother as kept woman dependent upon men's labour. That's how far 'feminism' falls from women's liberation or sexual equality: feminism is the ancien regime that those ideals opposed.
That said, choice under duress is no choice. Women's freedom to have an abortion, like their freedom to work, comes at too high a cost to call choice if nothing changes to acknowledge child-raising as a 'job' equal to any other. Many people, mostly women, are paid to raise children in schools, nurseries, orphanages and the like. Why are their mothers the only ones who are not? Why do feminists want them to return to economic exploitation of, dependence on, the man they chose to impregnate them? Supposing they did not want a man at all and used AI? Supposing the relationship broke up and they found a man they much prefer? Supposing the man they love is infertile, so they chose another? Why should 'feminism' return the woman to being beholden upon the man? Supposing everybody was having fun with no expectations of relationship but she got pregnant anyway and has no interest in chasing the man or he has a relationship already? Supposing women just plain want to be in control of their own womb?
The only resposnse I have ever had from women identifying as 'feminists' to all this re-statement of "women's liberation" is hysterical accusations of 'accusing' women of sleeping around in the hope of 'trapping' men into looking after them and of wanting men to evade 'their' responsibilities - instead of feminists being the ones to avoid their responsibility for their own fertility. In other words, the usual feeble female men in charge feminist abdication of human responsibility.
Few women treat abortion casually. Naturally I've known the odd one who did. Generally they get rid of it because society especially 'feminist' society, is geared up for men and 'feminism' is part of ensuring it stays that way. As long as a woman follows traditional masculine rules of devoting most of her attention to her employers and keeps her family as something she 'has' but never allows to intefer with her corporate commitment, she is fine. If she has other ideas, she faces the problems as a man who wants to value his family life and relationships before corporate devotion but more so: she has the physical pregnancy and suckling to interer with her use as a wage-slave where he does not.
So there is a way in which encouragement of abortion can be very loosely linked to all totalitarianisms. It is the way that the individual exists to serve the employer, not the employment to produce what individuals need. It is the feminist demand that all ways must be found to allow women the same ability to devote themselves to serving employers without family commitment getting in the way that men have had instead of asserting that the employers exist only to provide for family commitment and should not be allowed to get in its way for men any more than they have been allowed to since women lost their freedom to value motherhood as a career equal to any other that was not then and is now even less respected as such.
Always somebody will rave on about feckless girls spawning all over the place at the public expense. That's like observing that beggars only spend it on booze. What else can a tramp do with £50? But would the tramp do the same with £50,000 a year? What if 'society' said that both sexes are equal but one gives birth and it is only on her tolerance that the other is involved with the child, mainly to provide for her while she is too occupied with the child? What if society changed to recognised traditionally women's domestic values as central and everything it did ultimately directed to suporting women's freedom to do them and men's equal freedom to do the same?
What if, instead of looking for ways for women to suppress their female reproduction to conform to the 'masculine' values and activities that corporate conservatives and feminists value above what they see as 'feminine', we looked for ways to change society to allow women complete support and equal value in those things that men cannot do, and to encourage men to value as much of them as possible before their corporate commitment, if we could change social values away from corporate conservative 'feminism' and to 'feminised' social equality?
|
|