Do I personally believe that? No. There is no factual data that correlates Hitlers claims with data to prove it. Of course, no data exists, either, so we may never know.

But by using abortion's claim that it reduces criminal rates since it targets the poor and 'unsavory' in our world, then one could possibly argue that Nazi eugenics may have had merit, since we do find precedent in modern abortion statistics, and the correlated population groups that it slaughters (mainly blacks and poor).

So what you're saying is that the comparison you were supposedly drawing is actually completely baseless and was merely a convenient excuse to insert a comparison of abortion to the Holocaust (and abortionists to Hitler) into the discussion.  Gotcha. 

In any case your argument falls apart when you assume that the fetuses being aborted are persons, which is quite debatable, as you should know, having yourself participated in more than one debate on that very subject on this forum alone.

So you think that the pro-life viewpoint assumes, that at any time, fetuses aren't people? I guess you haven't been reading up on their viewpoint :-p

My whole argument with the German Eugenics concept is that they're one in the same - Germany just didn't include contraception and abortion into the idea, but euthanasia and purging as the logical extension of the process. That's what the pro-lifer fears of the abortion position - that it can easily be related to the further aspects of the Eugenics program (and FYI, American doctors sterilized roughly 50,000 people in the name of Eugenics, so it's not just a Nazi concept. It was founded in America).

Abortion is a slippery slope. We've seen that the aborted babies are sold for research (without the consideration of the mother, AFIAK), which is a frightening concept. What I fear is that, with a disregard for life on the basis of a fetus being unwanted, or infirmed, it will eventually result (and has resulted in Nazi Germany and America at the turn of the 20th century) into systematic sterilizations or targeted euthanasia as a families' right to an individual, or a government's right over it's people.

Abortion is just one of many horrifying results of the devaluation of human life that some seem not to mind so much.  Others include organ harvesting (China does this already) and human cloning.  As if millions of babies slaughtered wasn't gruesome enough.

1.  But you're not preaching to the choir, you're trying to submit a serious argument.  If you assume the conclusion (trying to convince people to be pro-life with an argument that assumes a pro-life belief) then it's pointless. 

2.  You're confusing a bonus side effect (abortion lowers crime rate) with the purpose (allowing abortion as a right of the mother to decide what happens to herself).  More importantly, the entire moral problem of Eugenics (AFAIK, I'm no expert on the subject) is that it was forced on people, which abortion is not.  (Assuming the pro-choice belief that the fetus is not a person -- and since pro-choice people obviously do have that belief, that slippery slope does not exist for them.)   

3.  I would agree that the woman should have initial control over the disposition of the fetus.  I believe your fears are adequately addressed in (2).  The slippery slope would only exist for people who think that fetuses are persons but less important persons that can therefore be killed without regret, which I agree is abhorrent and is NOT the pro-choice position.

[edited in expansions to (2) and (3) at approx. 05:19.]

Very well then, Final Fan. I can understand your point that *if* (which is where we argue) a Fetus is meaningless/not a human, then those 'rights' come in to play. But it's the pro-life position that the *if* statement swings in favor of it being a Fetus. Hopefully, in the future, we get better medical direction to remove the grey area. But until then, I tend to be on the cautious, lets-not-kill-50m million fetuses side of the argument

mrstickball said: Very well then, Final Fan. I can understand your point that *if* (which is where we argue) a Fetus is meaningless/not a human, then those 'rights' come in to play. But it's the pro-life position that the *if* statement swings in favor of it being a Fetus. Hopefully, in the future, we get better medical direction to remove the grey area. But until then, I tend to be on the cautious, lets-not-kill-50m million fetuses side of the argument

Well, I think we have a reasonable amount of proof that a lot of what you consider gray area really isn't ... but then you disagree

Final-Fan said: mrstickball said: Very well then, Final Fan. I can understand your point that *if* (which is where we argue) a Fetus is meaningless/not a human, then those 'rights' come in to play. But it's the pro-life position that the *if* statement swings in favor of it being a Fetus. Hopefully, in the future, we get better medical direction to remove the grey area. But until then, I tend to be on the cautious, lets-not-kill-50m million fetuses side of the argument Well, I think we have a reasonable amount of proof that a lot of what you consider gray area really isn't ... but then you disagree

Then we can save that for another topic, I guess. But when I see a picture like this (warning: Graphic if you consider a fetus anything of worth) it makes me sincerely desire that said entity get a shot at life, rather than the whims of a disillusioned mother.

If you want to argue if a fetus is a useless piece of flesh, unworthy to be considered anything of worth, then I await a healthy debate on the subject. As I said previously, I am very convinced on this matter that said fetuses should get a shot at life. Being pro-choice, to me, should be a matter if the mother wants to keep the child, or give it away. Of course, that view is not what we're debating, however. I can only hope that, in my life, my wife and I can adopt as many children as possible, and give them them a shot at a good life.

Pro choice