Human Rights

The limits of Godwin’s law

Reductio ad Hitlerum is among the most well known logical fallacies – a form of guilt-by-association which denotes trying to win an argument by comparing one’s opponent to Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, or any number of comparable monsters. Closely related is Godwin’s Law, under which anyone who plays the Nazi card is usually automatically deemed the debate’s loser. Clearing such hyperbole from our political discourse is generally worthwhile.

But what about when the subject in dispute really is Naziesque?

Right now, Britain is getting a crash course in the limits of Godwin, as the Bishop of Motherwell, the Rev. Joseph Devine, faces criticism for comparing graphic abortion images to death camps:

As other commentators have observed, such images should not be suppressed from the public consciousness any more than pictures of famine or the reality of war. If we cannot face the pictures, how can we conceive of endorsing the reality?

I have no doubt that the publication of the photographs of the victims of Auschwitz and the Burma Railway brought home the horrors of such evil catastrophes far more effectively than a million pleading words. Two hundred thousand abortions take place in Britain each year. Why is the pro-choice lobby so desperate to hide the truth about abortion from the public?

British Pregnancy Advisory Service spokeswoman Clare Murphy is naturally outraged:

I think most people would find it utterly despicable to compare abortion to the Holocaust. It is deeply insulting to the millions of Jewish people who died during the second world war.

It is hugely inflammatory. I can’t imagine anyone would feel that comparing abortion to the Holocaust is a useful or pertinent analogy.

Personally, I can’t help but feel my stomach churn a little every time I see people express more disgust toward someone describing abortion than they do toward abortion itself. It’s such a dramatic desensitization toward violence, such a perverse reversal of basic morality, that it illustrates why Devine’s rhetoric is not only valid, but often necessary.

Objectively speaking, unborn babies are every bit as human as Auschwitz prisoners, and killing them is every bit as unjust. True, Holocaust victims also endured unimaginable pain that many abortion victims don’t feel, but that doesn’t change the final analysis – if knowing what you’re going through and feeling the associated pain make that much of a moral difference, then would the Holocaust have been okay if the Jews were killed painlessly in their sleep?

And in terms of raw numbers, the ugly truth is that the 50 million lives taken by American abortion dwarf the Holocaust’s 6 million – that’s over eight Holocausts, in this country alone.

Like graphic images, using Nazi analogies isn’t necessarily advisable in all venues and with all pro-choicers. But they are morally and intellectually valid, and in a culture that has dehumanized so many of its innocent children and become desensitized to their mass murder under the façade of “choice,” it’s sometimes necessary to shock people’s sensibilities awake by invoking one of their only frames of reference for true societal evil. To avoid speaking such hard truths in harrowing clarity just because they hit too close to home for abortion apologists’ tastes would be the real logical fallacy.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Solntsye

    But what do you say to those who can look at the images and calmly acknowledge that abortion is killing an innocent unborn human being…and yet still support “choice”?! I have a few acquaintances who think this is a perfectly acceptable way for a human to die- violently and at the whim of another, and yet they jokingly refer to me as “The Pregnancy Nazi”. The only thing I can think is that some people just refuse to be shocked (or refuse to care enough to be shocked) by whatever horrors humans may dream up.

  • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

    I agree with the content of this post, but I’m annoyed that you linked to – by far – the worst article posted on this site recently about graphic images. The post you linked to practically dismisses graphic images altogether and does so childishly. This would have been a much better link.

  • Guest

    Why have you hidden/deleted my and Solntsye’s comments?

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    Since we’ve had the pleasure of discussing it prior, I know what you’d say to an animal rights activist who argues that the industrial food industry imposes a “holocaust” on livestock every single day. You’d posit that animals aren’t granted the same station and rights that people are in our society, and you’d be right.

    So, I’d remind you that fetuses and embryos aren’t granted the same station and rights as persons are in our society, and I’d be right. And really, if the good citizens of Mississippi can’t be convinced to confer those rights, having sent “Personhood” to defeat at the ballot, I really don’t know where your movement expects those rights to gain a foothold.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      No, I wouldn’t say we just “grant” rights, because rights aren’t ours to define or confer on anyone. They are innate moral qualities that exist wholly independent of anyone else’s desires, interests, or votes. Otherwise, your “logic” would have sufficed to render slavery morally acceptable. It was just “the station Negros were granted in our society,” after all….and now that you mention it, it occurs to me that claiming society has a right to define which classes of human beings “count” is another quality you guys share with the Nazis. Thanks, Astraspider!

      (And the difference between humans and animals is merely what society “confers” on them? Really?)

      It’s telling that, like you usually do, from there you change the subject from the moral question to a morally irrelevant conversation about political fortunes. As should be obvious to non-partisans who think about the question for more than a few seconds, human history in general, and US history in particular, have endured numerous human rights struggles that took far longer to win, against much stronger opposition, and with far fewer advantages, than the fight against murdering children. If we’d taken your advice to give up then, the world would be a far uglier place today.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Political realities aren’t a “morally irrelevant conversation”, unless one is losing at the politics and wants to claim some moral superiority in lieu of policy victories. The leaders and technocrats and lawyers notwithstanding, our political realities are shaped by the philosophies and opinions and virtues (or lack thereof) of the population at large. That was true of Nazi Germany, as it was true of the antebellum South. And the rights struggles that grew out of those two examples were certainly righteous, just as I know you feel your cause is righteous. But when the politics don’t go your way, what’s next? The politics didn’t help out the Jews in German nor did it go the slaves’ way in the South. The restoration of rights only came about after war. Is that the pro-life plan? War? If so, hot damn, that takes some chutzpah (and a little treason). If not, well, you can see how one might find the whole Nazi thing a bit hyperbolic and might swat it down with something like Godwin’s Law.

        And worth noting, for every rights struggle, there’s a group holding a position that has to be defeated. In Germany it was loathsome Nazis and a compliant population. In the South it land-owners with a contemptible economic system. In your case its … women. Just everyday women.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          How popular opinion gets shaped is indeed irrelevant to the questions at hand – the evil of abortion and the validity of Holocaust comparisons. I understand appealing to authority is comforting – ‘hey, if so many people agree with me, I can’t be *that* bad, can I?’ But an attempt to change the subject is all it is.

          “But when the politics don’t go your way, what’s next?”

          Uh, the same thing that any side does whenever they lose a vote on any issue? Spoiler alert: losing is kind of a common occurrence in American politics. The losing side picking up guns isn’t.

          “Is that the pro-life plan? War?”

          I’d ask you to grow up, but we both know that’s not gonna happen.

          “you can see how one might find the whole Nazi thing a bit hyperbolic”

          Except for the fact that the Holocaust-abortion comparison is accurate, for reasons you’ve strenuously avoided discussing.

          “In your case its … women. Just everyday women.”

          Hmm, seems to me I remember an idea the Third Reich used to great effect about repeating a lie often enough……aren’t you supposed to be working to make pro-choicers *less* analogous to Nazis, rather than more?

        • Solntsye

          “In your case its…women. Just everyday women”

          Wrong. It’s an entire industry based on a false and fraudulent premise. Women are frequently its’ victims, and innocent unborn children always are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003586781928 Magdalene Prodigal

    It is indeed a holocaust–the murder of innocent persons that is about 10 times the murder of the innocent Jews from the nazi regime and this is worldwide every year. Their blood is upon us all.

  • .james

    I have a pro-life version of Godwin’s:
    As an abortion discussion continues, the probability of rape victims being mentioned approaches unity.

  • Pingback: Human Rights vs. Animal Rights

  • Pingback: Irony Alert: Pro-Choice Kos Accuses Republicans of Favoring “More Dead Children”

  • Pingback: Virginia Republican compares abortion to Holocaust, Democrats whine, GOP likely to hide under desks

  • Anon

    Did you know almost all ‘pro-lifers’ are against the spread of condoms? and that they wont give one to a husband who has say, aids when his wife is pure? Honestly speaking here you faggots. Abortion is here to stay, and one of the most obvious and supporting pillars for why it exists in the numbers it does is catholicism and other similar terrible organizations that would rather spread the transmission of death so that theoretically it might be possible for a baby to be born than give people access to proper sex education and birth control. you faggots need to shut the fuck up and realize you can’t have it both ways. While I’m on the subject I may as well lambast you dumbass bastards for being so black and white on the issue as well. Carl Sagan had a great and scientifically supported idea for a limit in terms of development for abortion. you’ll never catch many ‘pro-lifers’ agreeing with it though because like most religious fundamentalists the idea of compromise is like garlic to a vampire. never mind if the person giving birth is in danger of dying or she or the baby is diagnosed with an incurable and disease or disability. never mind if the baby hasn’t even reached the developmental stage where human like thought is possible. No matter how you look at it the inhuman disrespect for life ‘pro-lifers’ have is an abomination.

  • Pingback: Jezebel can’t figure out why pro-life Christians aren’t nicer about aborting “abnormal” babies with heartbeats