nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the moderator is wrong as has been pointed to them several times.

Is that your opinion, or a statement of fact?

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Its a statement of fact.

Its not true, so its not a fact.

robarmstrong

Recedite, forgive me, I’m on my phone and the quote function is going absolutely mad.

At the time, in Nazi Germany, the murder of non-humans/citizens (which is what non-Nazis were referred to) was legal, so it was lawful killing. However, due to those laws actually directly contradicting the international laws of the time, along with the laws of war (specifically around the treatment of POW’s, which the Jewish, for example, were) deemed invalid by Nuremberg, as you know.

It was due to the above that the trials in Nuremberg happened, as although the Nazis did not break their own law, they did however break international laws and laws of war.

So in their mind (and their legal system) it was not technically murder, no. It also should be raised that they rewrote their own previously agreed laws and interpreted what kind of individuals received “human rights” (Aryans & Non-Aryans - as it was widely viewed back then that non Nazis were subhuman or did not qualify as human) and what individuals did not receive human rights.

However you do make a good point, one which I’ve addressed and respectfully refuted. I would provide you with links to support the above facts (specifically around the classification of humans in Nazi laws and the referencing points on international laws & laws of war) but I hope you can appreciate that’s incredibly awkward to do on a phone so I will do so when I’m on a laptop.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the moderator is wrong as has been pointed to them several times.

Nope. A small number of posters have taken the time to dismiss my point of view, but without taking the time to parse it, or to reply meaningfully to it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Its a statement of fact.

recedite wrote: »

Its not true, so its not a fact.

FYI - neither of these two posts constitute meaningful discussion, so cut it out, folks. Any further snarky one-liners will be deleted and may earn their owners a colored card.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Any further snarky one-liners will be deleted.

Now THATS a fact.

ohnonotgmail

Going on that last mod post i am clearly not welcome here. Good luck.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Going on that last mod post i am clearly not welcome here. Good luck.

There's more to the community that posts here regularly than the mods, and FWIW I reckon the mods are making a significant effort to take people's views on board. I for one find your posts valid and on point. I'd suggest hanging around a bit longer to see how it pans out.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

There's more to the community that posts here regularly than the mods, and FWIW I reckon the mods are making a significant effort to take people's views on board. I for one find your posts valid and on point. I'd suggest hanging around a bit longer to see how it pans out.

No, i'm done. The condescending moderation is too much to listen to.

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

So in their mind (and their legal system) it was not technically murder, no.

That's an honest answer.

It also should be raised that they rewrote their own previously agreed laws and interpreted what kind of individuals received “human rights” (Aryans & Non-Aryans - as it was widely viewed back then that non Nazis were subhuman or did not qualify as human) and what individuals did not receive human rights.

And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

robarmstrong wrote: »

However you do make a good point, one which I’ve addressed and respectfully refuted. I would provide you with links to support the above facts

You have addressed it honestly, but I don't think you have refuted it. And BTW don't bother searching for links on nazi era Germany- that is not really the point.

There is a general point of principle here. "Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

That's an honest answer.
And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

You have addressed it honestly, but I don't think you have refuted it. And BTW don't bother searching for links on nazi era Germany- that is not really the point.

There is a general point of principle here. "Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

The Nazi's did not break their own laws, but they did break international laws and laws of war. So whilst the Nazi's did not interpret what they were doing as "murder", international law and laws of war in effect trumped what they had written, hence why they had to stand trial in Nuremberg. We removed the right to life of the unborn, correct, but there is no international law dictating that the unborn must have a right to life unfortunately. If there was well then we'd be having a completely different conversation. There were however, international laws and laws of war which dictated the treatment of human beings during times of war which were breached by the Nazi regime.

So yes, I would say I have in effect refuted it and agree I have addressed it honestly. (though obviously I will agree I have refuted it and naturally you will disagree, as is the nature of these discussions)

EDIT: an interesting thing to note as well

The Führerprinzip ("leader principle") designated Hitler as above the law.

So Hitler's preachings and instructions actually placed him above his own laws. So whilst there may be debate over what the Nazi's interpreted as human/sub-human, whether it qualified as murder in the eyes of their laws or not, it is interesting to note that Hitler and his dictations, instructions & mantras were actually above the law.

Mark Hamill

I either missed the post, or just can't remember - What was the context in which the poster said "abortion is murder" that somehow ended up with so many people arguing with robindch about it?

aloyisious

I have recedite on "ignore" but - after he/she brought the Nazis into the debate - cant help ask him/her if he/she is equating abortion with the Nazi regime's organized mass murder as a state policy. Are you equating the average YES voter here in the referendum with Otto Eichmann? IMO, that is where your equating of the two is leading.

I reckon some-one else might respond to any answer he/she posts to my question, if an answer is given, enabling me to see what the answer is. My apologies in advance for having to use other debaters as go-betweens.

robarmstrong

aloyisious wrote: »

I have recedite on "ignore" but - after he/she brought the Nazis into the debate - cant help ask him/her if he/she is equating abortion with the Nazi regime's organized mass murder as a state policy. Are you equating the average YES voter here in the referendum with Otto Eichmann? IMO, that is where your equating of the two is leading.

I reckon some-one else might respond to any answer he/she posts to my question, if an answer is given, enabling me to see what the answer is. My apologies in advance for having to use other debaters as go-betweens.

I'd be happy enough to pass recedite's response on, if that is obviously acceptable with recedite?

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

There were however, international laws and laws of war which dictated the treatment of human beings during times of war which were breached by the Nazi regime.

I'm not a great believer in "the laws of war". War is what happens when legal avenues fail, and the object of war is only to win.

Obviously there were Geneva conventions etc which were applied conscientiously by the nazis to British and American POWs, but less so to Russians or jews.
Also the firebombing of Dresden by the RAF or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USAF can hardly be considered as complying with "laws".

The winner of a war gets to write the new laws, and to state who is morally right and who was wrong, and that's what happened at Nuremberg.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I either missed the post, or just can't remember - What was the context in which the poster said "abortion is murder" that somehow ended up with so many people arguing with robindch about it?

A poster used the term "abortion is murder" (or words to that effect) several times on the thread. When called out about it the poster flatly denied they had used those words.

Someone (can't recall who) made a nice long post citing many examples of the poster using the words "abortion is murder" (or words to that effect).

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'd be happy enough to pass recedite's response on, if that is obviously acceptable with recedite?

Do whatever you can to help those who have handicapped themselves.

aloyisious

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I either missed the post, or just can't remember - What was the context in which the poster said "abortion is murder" that somehow ended up with so many people arguing with robindch about it?

I think it was in reference to the posters answers being in denial and/or equivocation in respect of what he/she posted in the past and other posters getting upset with the answers and further upset with Mods responses to complaints about the original posters denial/equivocations/response failures in the eyes of the beholders. The O/Ps thinking the mods were failing to call the original poster out on his/her deliberate failing to reply to questions put to him/her honestly and directly about his/her original "offending" posts. Hope this about beholders views is enlightening for you.

Mark Hamill

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A poster used the term "abortion is murder" (or words to that effect) several times on the thread. When called out about it the poster flatly denied they had used those words.

Someone (can't recall who) made a nice long post citing many examples of the poster using the words "abortion is murder" (or words to that effect).

And it was used as a declaration or claim of fact, not as the starting point for why we should accept that abortion is murder?
I.e. more:
"Abortion is Murder! Think of the babies!"
rather than:
"Because of points/examples X,Y and Z, Abortion clearly is a form of murder"
?

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

I'm not a great believer in "the laws of war". War is what happens when legal avenues fail, and the object of war is only to win.

Obviously there were Geneva conventions etc which were applied to British and American POWs, but less so to Russians or jews.
Also the firebombing of Dresden by the RAF or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USAF can hardly be considered as complying with "laws".

The winner of a war gets to write the new laws, and to state who is morally right and who was wrong, and that's what happened at Nuremberg.

I can respect you are not a great believer in the "laws of war" however they are actual laws that exist and require participants to abide by them. Just because you are not a believer in them does not negate their purpose.

The Geneva Conventions applied to all POWs, however they were expanded in 1949 to protect non-combatant civilians.

I do agree with you in relation to the bombings by the RAF & USAF, but unfortunately due to the Geneva Convention not being "up-to-date" with its protection of non-combatant civilians, what happened, happened...

That is not what happened at Nuremberg, war crimes were committed and were addressed as such. War law & international law was broken and was addressed accordingly.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I either missed the post, or just can't remember - What was the context in which the poster said "abortion is murder" that somehow ended up with so many people arguing with robindch about it?

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

What it comes down to, IMO, is whether EOTR's right to express his honestly held opinion can be trumped by some other person's right not to be offended by it.
And now we have two posters (ohnonotgmail and king mob) threatening to leave because they can't get their own way.

Basically, its Free Speech v No-platforming.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

No, it does not. It was not his "occasional use" of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

It was that particular individual telling everyone it was a fact that abortion was murder, then claiming they never said abortion was murder and when confronted with the posts contradicting their statement.

It's not the desire to see the user banned for that particular incident, but moreso because it has become their "signature move".

.......

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

Actually pretty much everyone has expressed that they do not want the poster banned but actually moderated and held to the same standard as everyone else.

And simply using the term murder was not the main issue.

If what you have taken from the exhaustive discussions on this matter is that some contributers wish to ban EOTR for using the word murder you have either misunderstood the entire issue, have not been following closely, or are trying to inflame using such a suggestion.

You quite literally could not be more wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

What it comes down to, IMO, is whether EOTR's right to express his honestly held opinion can be trumped by some other person's right not to be offended by it.
And now we have two posters (ohnonotgmail and king mob) threatening to leave because they can't get their own way.

Basically, its Free Speech v No-platforming.

It's actually about the posters comtinued soapboxing across the whole site.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

This is blatantly untrue.

Can you either back this claim up or withdraw it?

recedite

Are we in general agreement then, that it is OK for EOTR to occasionally use the word "murder" in this thread, so long as it is part of a coherent argument or discussion?
ie. he does not just show up every now and again and post...

Abortion is murder!

...and then leave.
Because that would obviously be soapboxing.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Are we in general agreement then, that it is OK for EOTR to occasionally use the word "murder" in this thread, so long as it is part of a coherent argument or discussion?
ie. he does not just show up every now and again and post... ...and then leave.
Because that would obviously be soapboxing.

Hopefully the arguments will be more coherent that here

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

What it comes down to, IMO, is whether EOTR's right to express his honestly held opinion can be trumped by some other person's right not to be offended by it.
And now we have two posters (ohnonotgmail and king mob) threatening to leave because they can't get their own way.

Basically, its Free Speech v No-platforming.

No one has the right to free speech on here.

Again can I ask why as a person who states that they don't believe abortion is murder or that gay/transgender people are lesser people than heterosexuals, that you spend a lot of time arguing against your own beliefs.

recedite

DubInMeath wrote: »

No one has the right to free speech on here.

Again can I ask why as a person who states that they don't believe abortion is murder or that gay/transgender people are lesser people than heterosexuals, why you spend a lot of time arguing against your own beliefs.

First, you may withdraw those allegations, or else cite instances where I made such statements.
Regarding abortion, I have alluded to it as technically not murder, in the same way as robarmstrong said the nazis technically did not murder the jews.
"Technically" is a subtle qualifier term in there, which you may have failed to notice.

As for alleging that I said "gay/transgender people are lesser people than heterosexuals" that is pure defamation. Kindly withdraw it.

I believe in the value of Free Speech, even if you don't. The careful observer will have noted that my arguments are entirely consistent with such beliefs.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

I believe in the value of Free Speech, even if you don't. The careful observer will have noted that my arguments are entirely consistent with such beliefs.

You've mentioned Free Speech twice now in a few posts, can you expand on what you mean by that because I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion!

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Regarding abortion, I have alluded to it as technically not murder, in the same way as robarmstrong said the nazis technically did not murder the jews.

Technically at the time, under their laws they did not commit murder.

However, they were in fact charged with murder in Nuremberg.

The indictments were for:

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

Intentionally killing non-combatants/civilians did fall under the above terms which have been bolded.

So whilst I stated they did not technically murder the Jews, I was referring to their laws dictating the status of Jews in their legal aspects, they were found guilty of this.