Posted on 03/19/2012 5:13:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
BAM! That’s going to leave a mark.
Amen I say
Here’s the bottom line: Liberals just make stuff up and have absolutely no concern for truth. They make things up and then just walk away, moving on to their next lie. They simply don’t care about truth because they have long since figured out that truth will never substantiate them.
The correct translation for "holocaust" is: "an accepted burned offering." Now think back to what they did with many Jewish bodies after gassing them in the camps.
Creepy, huh?
"The holocaust" was a cynical invention of an anti-Semitic media. The correct word is "Shoah," which simply means "disaster."
I'm NOT a Holocaust denier. However, I am willing to recognize that some people may employ the word in a very cynical, self-serving fashion as a political weapon. These people should be ashamed.
Now, I think I understand your position. You don’t think the unborn are “people.” Well, what are they? Are you even prepared to offer an explanation of when a living fetus becomes a “person”?
The crux of the false analogy is that Mr. Friedman's distinction is not about "personhood;" it is about collective intent for genocide, which is a different crime than murder for convenience. The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race. Mr. Adams should learn better.
Excellent!
I find it worrisome that the far left now argues for post-birth abortion. Newborn babies are almost as small as they were just before birth, and within the first couple weeks they are usually noticeably smaller. The newborn are only slightly more developed than the unborn. Newborns require a protected environment. And newborn babies must depend on others for survival. Former US Senator Obama argued for legal killing of the accidentally born children who survive attempted abortions, and that view is moving toward the mainstream in the far left fringe that controls the Democrat Party. The only justice in their stance is that most democrats are at a lower level of mental development, require a protective environment, and must depend on productive Americans for survival. If they get the powerful centralized government they are working to create, liberals will be its first victims.
The people who did the killing in the Holocaust first had to alter their conscience or superego. They had to accept the absurd notion that the Jews, Gypsies and others were not really human beings and exterminating them while unpleasant was not in their mind a moral transgression. These murderers actually had families and slept well. Similarly those who do the abortions and acquiesce to abortion have made a similar accommodation. They have convinced themselves that killing pre born human life is somehow not a transgression against nature. They profit and live well, and fully expect their neighbors to applaud their killing. They do have a lot in common with the Nazi killers. Personally I never trust a “pro abortion” individual. When someone announces they are “pro choice” (the politically correct term for the killing), they have shown they are capable of virtually any moral transgression. it is best to have only superficial relationships with such people.
I would say that the Jewish Holocaust was a disaster that killed 6 million Jews. It seems that you would accept the word "Shoah" to describe this.
I would say that the Abortion era has been a disaster that has killed 50 million people. Would I be justified in using the term "Shoah" for this disaster? Could I use the word "holocaust"?
On a strictly numerical basis, one might say that the Abortion disaster is nearly ten times greater than the Jewish Holocaust -- but numbers are not everything, and I see no advantage to anyone saying this atrocity is worse than that atrocity. These atrocities are simply terrible and neither needs to win "the prize" of being the worst.
I am also reminded of the child sacrifices to Moloch, and how people who did not know God would throw children into the flames as burnt offerings.
Personally, I think that Mike Adams is justified in calling the Abortion disaster a "holocaust".
Google the demographics of abortion.
Now, consider that abortion may be ‘chlorine for the gene pool’. Wouldn’t want to stand in the way of evolution, would you?
Just sayin’.
Whether you are correct may depend on which features of the Holocaust should be considered central to its moral repugnance. Is genocide a central element? Or would the government eliminating a similar number of families either to take their assets or simply because they would not conform to the new order be just as immoral? I worry about the effect of insisting on genocide as a central element of the Holocaust's evil. While genocide was an additional element of evil in the Holocaust, I don't see a huge moral gap between Hitler's targeted mass murders of Jews, gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other "undesirables", and the less narrowly targeted but still horrifying mass murders committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others who interpreted socialism as violently as Hitler did but included more diversity among their victims.
mike Adams has good instincts, but he is a psychologist who has discovered how bankrupt and evil psychology is. Unfortunately, he is lacking in serious education, but he is coming along.
A+
I totally agree.
Nor was that the goal of the "Final Solution".
The Third Reich killed 6 million Jews.
They also killed 5-7 million Gentiles - Gypsies, Communists, the physically/mentally defective and others they found inconvenient.
Thinking back, the original goal of Margaret Sanger was, in fact, to kill all babies of a particular race ... "human weeds" she called them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.