home

James Dobson's Nazi Comparison

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:17:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A Press Release from Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, co-author of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810) today condems Focus on the Family's James Dobson's likening of stem cell research to Nazi experiments in World War II. (received by e-mail.)

James Dobson's remarks were extremely ignorant and insulting. While it's sad that they warrant a response, his comments diminish the enormity of the Nazis' atrocities and are an appalling distortion of the debate," said Rep. DeGette. "In a perfect world, everyone would ignore such inflammatory rhetoric. Barring that, it must be condemned by all rational people. I hope my Republican colleagues express the same outrage with Dobson that they have expressed for partisan purposes in the past."

Dobson's comments, delivered on the August 3 broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio show, were first reported by Media Matters. They can be heard online here . On the show, Dobson said:

You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany.... (Focus on the Family Radio Show, August 3, 2005)

Accurate, non-partisan information about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust can be found at the Web sites for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum , The Simon Weisenthal Center or the University of Denver Holocaust Awareness Institute.

< Fitzgerald, Cooper, Sauber, Rove , Luskin and Ginsberg | Michael Jackson Jurors to Write Books Alleging Guilt >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    James Dobson's Nazi Comparison | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    James Dobson is an extremist and a religous bigot in the same way that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are. All of them know that the only way that their hate groups can get any press is to make outrageous statements -- which 99% of the time, have zero basis in fact -- knowing that Fox News and similar propaganda outlets will eat it all up. Despicable and beneath our contempt.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    The ignorance shown here is almost beyond belief. Just when I think these extremists couldn't possibly shock me again, this simple-minded BS gets broadcasted. And the sheeple will lap it up like a thirsty dog laps up water.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#3)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Somebody help me out here. The charge against Dobson differs from what people claim Dick Durbin said in what way?

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Dobson says:
    Science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality.
    Is that the same science that came up with the means to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I guess they forgot what they were "guided by" that day.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Well, the difference is that Durbin was right. If you were shown a video of someone tied in a bag and beaten to death with rubber hoses, or repeatedly held underwater until the point of drowning, and you were given a questionnaire that read, "Whose national values does this video most embody? a) Nazi Germany b) The Soviet Union (and its satellites) c) The United States of America" You probably would pick A or B, or both. And you'd be wrong. Now. If Dobson and the Republicans have their way, the millions of embryos produced in fertility clinics would have their Sanctity of Life preserved by throwing them in the trash can. God is great. If the medical and scientific communities (i.e. nazis) have their way, these two-celled organisms which everyone including Dobson agrees are probably going to die no matter what because the vast majority are not used and cannot be preserved indefinitely will be used to cure diseases. You know, the true aim of the Nazi party.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Ethics and morality would mean this ***would speak out against such things as the Bush assault on pregnant women, children and the unborn through his mercury emissions policy.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#7)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Now. If Dobson and the Republicans have their way, the millions of embryos produced in fertility clinics would have their Sanctity of Life preserved by throwing them in the trash can. God is great. If the medical and scientific communities (i.e. nazis) have their way, these two-celled organisms which everyone including Dobson agrees are probably going to die no matter what because the vast majority are not used and cannot be preserved indefinitely will be used to cure diseases. You know, the true aim of the Nazi party.
    I don't disagree with the sentiment, scar, but I don't see any of that in Dobson's remarks. He said that if you were to ask what kind of people judge the validity of medical research based on it's utility, you'd guess: a) Nazi Germany, or b) The United States I'm not arguing that Dobson is right. In fact, I think he's demogoguing this issue as mightily as he's able. I just don't find it satisfying to use the right's rhetorical toolkit to say so.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#8)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Personally, Quaker, I'd consider Dobson's equating of experimentation upon blastocysts with experimentation upon humans to be outrageous, but then I'm pro-choice. Further, as a pragmatist, I tend in general to equate validity with utility, so I may be missing the point.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Bad Jim, whether Dobson is right or wrong isn't my point. Just a few short weeks ago, commenters on the right were up in arms about Dick Durbin "comparing U.S. troops to Nazis." Many of us on the left pointed out--rightly--that he did no such thing. Now comes Mr. Dobson making a statement much like Mr. Durbin's. Are we on the left now to adopt the tactics we hated so much just a short time ago?

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    There's a lot of ignorance on display here. For starters, an embryo is not a "two-celled organism" (scarshaped star), nor are they "blastocysts" (bad Jim). Embryos are unborn children between the ages of 3 and 8 weeks. See the following tutorial for a basic medical overview. At this stage of development, the embryo develops major organs, toes, eyelids, hair follicles, etc. Ok, now here's the complicated part. Ready for this? She's not a kangaroo. She is a living thing. She has eyes, ears, fingers, and toes. In 14 more weeks, she will begin to recognize the sound of her mother's voice and be startled by loud noises... Let's just make a leap here, purely for the sake of argument, and suggest that she might possibly be a child. I know, I know, extremist nonsense. Ridiculous and biased assertions. You can't believe someone with a college education might come to this conclusion. Ok, now that you've had your emotional reaction, let's follow the logic. If she's a child, then doing experiments on her is experimentation on children. You with me here? And if she dies from the experiment, which is the intention, then it's murder. But, you say, think of all the people who might be helped by this research! Think of paraplegics walking again! Think of blind people able to see! Yes, there may some day be benefits from killing this child. But we should not do it. And what's more, we should not force taxpayers to fund it. And yes, experiments on children is something the Nazis did, using exactly the same logic about the great benefits that might accrue, and dismissing those children as sub-human. But they're going to die anyway, you say. Perhaps they will, since we were selfish enough to put them in test tubes rather than in their mothers' wombs. But that doesn't mean they're ours to harvest at will. We have to do the right thing, and that is to work to save these children, not profit from their deaths.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    grad, While I share your sentiments, everything I have read says the ESCs are taken from embryos that are a "few days old," from about 2 to 16 cells - embryos nonetheless. There are less-controversial methods of obtaining ESCs, including: "Professor Josef Käs and Dr Jochen Guck from the University of Leipzig have developed a procedure that can extract and isolate embryo-quality stem cells from adult blood for the first time."

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Grad, Please, please, please, read up on a subject you don't know anything about before you post. This from the university of Wisconsin Madison: "What are embryonic stem cells? Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are unlike any specific adult cell. However, they have the ability to form any adult cell. Because undifferentiated embryonic stem cells can proliferate indefinitely in culture, they could potentially provide an unlimited source of specific, clinically important adult cells such as bone, muscle, liver or blood cells." And "Where do embryonic stem cells come from? Human embryonic stem cells are derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Using 14 blastocysts obtained from donated, surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization, a group of UW-Madison developmental biologists led by James Thomson established five independent stem cell lines in November 1998. This was the first time human embryonic stem cells had been successfully isolated and cultured." Catch that? Undifferentiated. Unlike any adult cell. LESS THAN A WEEK OLD. No fingers, no toes, no heartbeat. The whole point of using blastocysts (yes badjim was right) is that they can become anything. They aren't already liver cells, or heart cells, or whatever. There is a lot of ignorance being displayed. Quite a lot.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Also "But they're going to die anyway, you say. Perhaps they will, since we were selfish enough to put them in test tubes rather than in their mothers' wombs." Huh? Setting aside your nonsense about these being little babies we're doing experiments on, who is being selfish? All embryonic stem cell lines have come and will come from DISCARDED embryos. They are at the fertility clinic because no one wants them (either because they're already pregnant, have decided they're infertile, whatever). So we have a choice. Throw them in the medical waste heap, or use them to develop life saving treatments for horrific diseases.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#14)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    grad, here's a link to the text c-law quoted.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Many thanks to Sarcastic and C-law; I stand corrected. The research is being done on blastocysts as mentioned by Bad Jim (apologies to same for an erroneous correction). The correction directed to 'scarshaped star' stands, however, since these blastocysts are generally 5 days old and comprised of 50-150 cells in three layers. The embryo at this stage has not begun to differentiate and develop features, as I had claimed; that happens 2 weeks later. All that being so, the issue is unchanged. Here's why. (1) the blastocyst is still not a kangaroo, and is still a living organism, and will still recognize his/her mother's voice in a matter of 20 weeks....still a human being, in other words. A very, very young child with a lot of growing to do. Therefore, we still can't kill this child in order to harvest his/her cells. (2) Since unborn children have no legal rights in the USA or Canada and can be killed up to and including the moment of birth, it is all but certain that people will look to harvest more developed cells when such is advantageous. In fact this is already being advocated to yield brain cells for Parkinson's Disease sufferers. Where will you draw the line? Currently a baby one hour prior to birth can be killed for any reason or none at all. Likewise, a baby in the 2nd trimester. Likewise at the embryo stage, and also the blastocyst stage. We know human life doesn't begin prior to conception, so killing the egg or the sperm cell are non-issues. But once conception occurs, many aren't sure when human life begins. Faced with the possibility of killing a child, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? I would rather die a miserable death from Alzheimer's than be wondering whether my cure came at the expense of someone's life... Again, thanks for the corrections on pertinent facts. In my disgust for abortion in general I failed to check the details concerning this particular issue. Although the victims are younger than I had thought, it is nonetheless experimentation on children, and therefore deserves comparison to the infamous deeds of Nazi Dr. Mengele. Dobson had the courage to point this out, and I respect him for it.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    ...thanks also to Quaker for the link. Much appreciated. Note that the quote itself makes little sense: 'fertilized embryos'? You can't fertilize an embryo, only an egg. If only this debate were about harvesting human egg cells...in fact, there wouldn't be much debate.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Grad, It isn't experimentation on children. It simply isn't. It's experimentation on undifferentiated cells; on blastocysts. If the process did involve killing little fetuses with fingers, toes, etc. as you erroneously suggested, I wouldn't be for it. No one would. These really are just cells. You can believe life begins at fertilization; I'm a Catholic and can respect this view (although if you're against abortion because you think it destroys life, you damn sure (like the Catholic Church) also better be against the death penalty) but the fact remains that these are not children. To compare an experiment on undifferentiated cells to Mengele's torture "experiments" on thinking, breathing, pain-feeling human beings is absolutely disgusting. Dobson wasn't being courageous, he was being canny. He knew that a lot of people, even grad students, don't understand stem cell research, but are more than willing to pontificate about it, further confusing the debate. To be clear: if you believe that life begins at the MOMENT of fertilization, and that using undifferentiated cells (that will never, because they have been discarded, become a human being) to do research that will alleviate the pain and suffering of real live human beings, fine. I respect your point of view, and I respectfully disagree. But comparing an experiment on an unfeeling cell to the torture of a captive Jew is execrable.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Also "Since unborn children have no legal rights in the USA or Canada and can be killed up to and including the moment of birth, it is all but certain that people will look to harvest more developed cells when such is advantageous. In fact this is already being advocated to yield brain cells for Parkinson's Disease sufferers." I think you're wrong again. The value of these undifferentiated cells is their potential. I have never heard anyone advocate harvesting cells from children, at the moment of birth, to treat Parkinson’s. Please provide a link. Further, you say that "currently a baby one hour prior to birth can be killed for any reason or none at all." Nice rhetoric, but wrong again. All you can do then is a c-section. That isn't abortion (which I think is what you're referring to when you say killed), and if, in an emergency c-section, a child dies, that's tragic. The procedure was done to save the mother's life, while simultaneously, desperately, trying to save the child's. That's the reason, and I guarantee the mother who just lost her child is devastated. No one kills a child for no reason at all. This rhetoric isn't worthy of you. Clearly you're intelligent (even if you don't bother to fact check), but you've swallowed some really outrageously stupid talking points. Also, you haven't answered my question about who's being selfish, since the embryos were donated and are unwanted. Why is throwing them away, thus killing them, better than using them to do life saving, pain-alleviating research? Grad, I know it sounds like I'm insulting you, but I'm not. I'm just very worried that you are intentionally, because of personal opposition to abortion, trying to equate stem cell research with same, and confuse the issue and muddy the debate.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    c-law: (1) You don't know when human life begins. Clearly it begins no earlier than conception and no later than birth. When exactly? You don't know. Therefore err on the side of caution. (2) There is no abortion law in Canada; it was struck down in 1988 and never re-drafted. At this time a child can be killed until they have been born. Go here for the government's stats and policy. Concerning the US the situation is murkier, but in general the settled law is that states cannot limit abortion provision. Concerning killing the baby at birth, partial birth abortions have recently been made illegal but the law is being challenged in the courts (and has been stayed pending that outcome). For stats on all clinical abortions and the age of the baby when killed, see this link. Please note that 1.4% or 18000/year (US only) occur after the 21st week of pregnancy, when the baby has all the bodily features we discussed above. (3) I am not referring to C-section births, which are merely surgical operations to safely remove the baby (alive) from the uterus when a vaginal birth is too risky. (4) Regarding the harvesting of brain cells from unborn children for treating Parkinson's Disease, here's a link. Yes, it's for real, and yes these are children being killed for their brain cells. Clearly brain cells are differentiated, so this is well past the blastocyst stage. (5) Regarding the selfishness issue, you are holding two contradictory positions. If the embryo is not a child, then there's no reason to talk about how they're 'unwanted'. You bring up their 'unwantedness' to justify killing them. Think carefully about this: if we killed unwanted newborns, would you argue the same thing? ("Well, the mother doesn't want this baby, she's discarded him. It's either let him die in the trash or use him for experiments...") Murdering somebody for their body parts is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter if they would have died anyway. (6) "Grad, I know it sounds like I'm insulting you..." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're doing what I originally did: speaking without adequate research.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Grad, 1) No, I don't know when human life begins. I was merely trying to correct you on your assertion that we're ravaging babies with toenails, etc. for stem cells. My personal belief is that an undifferentiated set of cells (which has no chance of becoming anything else) is okay to use to alleviate the pain/suffering/death of very differentiated human beings. You seem to believe otherwise and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. 2) I read with interest your links on abortion. Thanks for providing them. Please note 2 things, however. The abortion stats link you provided says 88% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. Second, we don't do partial birth abortions except to save the life of the mother (and even then I'm not sure, some of the articles were a little murky and may have been dated). An easy way to verify this is to go to answers.com. Partial birth abortion is "not in technical use." Meaning not a technique we use. The link on Parkinson’s was very interesting. Important to note though: the cells were taken from already aborted fetuses (and not aborted for the purpose of harvesting, either). So they aren't being killed for their brain cells as you suggested. So now we're talking about gaining science from already dead fetuses to treat living people. To me that's pro-life. 3) Thank you for letting me know what a c-section is. As it happens, I already had that information ;-) 5) I'm not holding contradictory positions; I'm holding a position you are misunderstanding. The unwantedness issue is germane because it means that these blastocysts will, never, ever, ever, become children (they are going to die, for sure). I don't mean unwanted as in an unwanted child. If you want to treat a blastocyst as "somebody," okay. If you want to equate them with actual babies thrown in the trash, fine. And no, I think you can glean from all my posts that I wouldn't advocate killing children for the sake of medicine, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the fact that I differentiate between cells that haven't become anything, and fully (or even partially) formed human beings. Also, this issue really has nothing to do with abortion. I know you feel differently because you want to err on the side of caution, but surely you make some distinction between blastocysts, and fetuses with even remotely human features or any features at all, for that matter. 6) This has been fun. As much as you get sniped at for having a different opinion than others here, you are absolutely necessary for the blog. Otherwise we’d just have a boring 'ol echo chamber. And even though we disagree on probably just about every issue that comes down the pipe, let me be the second person on this blog to offer you a drink or 6. Let me know if you're ever planning to be in Iowa. I'm sure the barroom debate would be fantastic.

    Re: James Dobson's Nazi Comparison (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Wait, wait, I didn't read the entire answers.com article: Some states ban it outright, some ban unless the mother's life is in danger, some have no policy at all and 13 states ban them outright. SO, I was wrong. Technical use does not refer to "a technique we use," it refers to the fact that the term is not used technically. Most likely because it was a term invented to encourage outrage at the procedure (and this (the birth of the term) really is beyond argument).

    James Dobson's Nazi Comparison | 21 comments (21 topical)