True. But abortion IS killing an innocent child (if you’re pro-life). So, how do we fit rape inbetween killing an innocent child and… killing an innocent child.
That’s not the definition I personally work by. I brought up that particular point because, while I’m not pro-life, I actually do consider any killing of a person against their will to be murder, and that there are different degrees of “badness” of that murder. So it’s easy for me to imagine that there are pro-life people who could agree with me on that.
That’s not true of all pro-lifers.
But I do think that as a numbers game, it probably is true of enough of them to make RT’s hypothesis as to how to reconcile these beliefs about exceptions incorrect.
Yes, I was thinking of the traditional, more mainstream pro-lifers. There are, I suspect, some small subset of all anti-abortion folks who do not take the typical religious view of human life beginning at conception.
And I use anti-abortion on purpose because many people self-identify as “pro-life” because they personally oppose abortion even if they don’t necessarily want to make it illegal.
So a guy goes into an office, takes 12 hostages, and makes impossible-to-fulfill demands, threatening to kill a hostage an hour if not satisfied. Half an hour later he shoots a hostage in the head to show he’s not kidding. Just as he is about to kill another person, a police sniper shoots the hostage taker, killing him.
You’re willing to call both the hostage-taker and the sniper murderers? You think the sniper should not have acted?
I think you can take the religious view that life begins at conception but still view not all takings of life equally. I mean, I believe that life begins–at the latest–at birth. And yet I view different murders differently, and believe that different murders can be justified by different circumstances (just like 99% of my countrymen).
I don’t know what percentage of pro-lifers believe in a complete moral equivalence between fetus and child. I believe the number is quite high, and higher than the number who don’t believe in exceptions for rape, incest, or maternal health. But I’m open to being educated otherwise.
Murder, by definition, is the illegal taking of a human life. Would you want all taking of human life to be illegal? Even self-defense? Are you a 100% pacifist, no exceptions?
What you wrote makes sense, but I don’t think it proves that. I think we’re desentivized about things that are common and we’re accustomed to. For instance, you could have said the same about people opposed to slavery. If they really thought that slavery was very wrong, why didn’t they kill slaveowners and forcefully free the slaves? It would have made full sense too. It doesn’t mean they didn’t really believe slavery was wrong.
Also, some probably wish they could do that (those who send threat letters, for instance) but just don’t want to spend the rest of their life behind bars.
I’m sure plenty of people wouldn’t, especially if it was lawful to beat your children and the use of deadly force in this case was a ticket for a life sentence.
In fact, unless you can show me you already risked life and limb, or at least your freedom, in pursuit of a cause you thought was just, I’m not ready to believe you would just because you say so.
In all likelihood, you’re feeling you would precisely because you live in a society where abusing children is overwhelmingly considered evil, and where you would be vindicated for your actions.
I’m sure you’re feeling it’s very wrong when a kid starves somewhere in the world, but you’re not spending all your money and energy making sure they’re fed. You’re also not fighting against the Islamic state in Syria, even though you probably sincerely think it should be destroyed. You’re also not starting a revolution about whatever cause you think is really worthy.
You’re probably doing only what is generally considered as morally required by the society you live in, like mostly everybody else. You would rescue the abused kid, you would participate in the revolution if slavery was suddenly reinstated, you would send a check to a NGO to help providing food, you would put on the uniform if drafted to fight in Syria, etc…
And if you were sincerely thinking that abortion is murder, you would probably wave signs in front of an abortion clinic and nothing more. People who go “beyond the call” by pursuing their cause to the bitter end, even when facing public opprobrium for it, are (generally fortunately) extremely rare.
OK, then, tell me, assuming you’re old enough for this question to make sense :
What did you do during the genocide in Rwanda? What did your parents/older relatives did, if you’re yourself too young? I’m not even asking if you/they went there to fight to stop the genocide, but what concrete steps did you take to help stopping this ongoing campaign to kill thousands?
If it were socially acceptable, or if opposition to abortion was stronger, pro-lifers wouldn’t accept these exceptions. There have been cases of women for whom pregnancy was extremely risky who died because they were barred from having an abortion in other countries during the recent years. And the laws that resulted in that were backed by the majority of the local population.
It’s simply that the overwhelming majority of people aren’t extremists, and find themselves in some middle ground considered acceptable by the society they live in. Saying that abortion is akin to murder is acceptable in the society you live in, so they do that. Saying that a woman who is at a high risk of dying or has been raped should nevertheless carry a pregnancy to term isn’t very acceptable, so few people would argue that. Killing doctors over the issue is deemed totally unacceptable, so extremely few people will consider that.
One could argue that only extremists (willing to resort to violence or to take risks over an issue) “really” believe in their stance. That’s possible. But then, it just mean that mostly nobody truly believe in the cause they support.
Yes, I am.
No, I’m not. It’s a good illustration of the point as to how people can think something is murder, but that there are worse things than that murder.
That isn’t my definition of murder. Definitions, I suppose I should say, given that “Arsenal got murdered in that game.” isn’t intended to suggest that my football team were killed, only that they were sadly defeated quite soundly.
These parts depend on the first part being accurate, so no, no, and no.
I’m actually not old enough, or at least I was 8, so I don’t think there could reasonably be anything I could do. I don’t think I even knew about it at the time, to be honest.
But that aside, the most I can say that I’ve done in order to save lives being taken is probably donate to charity. Not very impressive.
Dang. You took my answer. 
To add to it, though: Consider the slaves themselves. Many of them were strongly opposed to their treatment and surely had murderous thoughts on a daily basis. But the majority of them do not act on this rage. Not only they did have too much self-preservation to do such a thing, but they were also smart enough to know that their individual acts of violence wouldn’t accomplish much.
I think there would be protesting in the streets and rioting for a few days. There would be individual acts of terrorism too. But people would eventually realize that bills still gotta be paid, dead kids or no dead kids. They’d return to work. Then as long as they’re working during the day, they might as well relax in front of the big ball game in the evening. People would eventually stop showing up at the protest rallies and “overthrowing the government” planning meetings. It’s hard to stay violently angry for very long.
People are also skillful at rationalizing their lack of passion, which is what most of us would eventually do. “Meh. Those kids were likely defective. I don’t think they should be killed, but it’s not like we’re talking about perfect angels like my little Junior and Suzie.” “Meh. Those kids shouldn’t be killed, but at least they’re going to heaven. It’s the parents who are going to hell.” “Meh. I don’t think the state should be killing innocent kids. But we’ve got too many people already. It’s not like we NEED more kids, especially unloved ones.” Etc. Etc. Etc.
The only people who would continue to be fervently angry would be the “crazy” ones that no one really takes seriously. I know that when I encounter an angry pro-lifer, my first thought is always: “GET A FUCKING LIFE!”
I think this is a good analogy, for me at least. I’m pro-life and I don’t think rape or incest are logical exceptions. It also seems to me to be an issue that I can do almost nothing about that would have any real impact. Combine the repugnance I feel at the thought of killing someone with the fact that I believe it would ultimately produce no real lasting effect, and there you have it. I believe the best possibility for limiting abortions is political, and I don’t hold out much hope for that. Perhaps that makes me cowardly or a cloudy thinker. But I do firmly believe that it’s simply axiomatic that the most fundamental right is the right to live and that all human beings possess this right. Like all rights, it’s not absolute.
This topic gets trotted out regularly, and there’s never a lack of pro-choicers willing to tell all pro-lifers, everywhere, what they truly believe. BTW, I also agree that most pro-lifers, like most people, don’t really worry about forming a cohesive, logically consistent, unified personal philosophy. Some things feel wrong to them and some don’t. “It’s wrong to kill a fetus” is a belief they hold and they aren’t troubled, nor do they see anything contradictory, with simultaneously believing, “it’s okay to kill a fetus when the circumstance is icky.” When questioned, you get a response like, “That’s just how I feel, I’m just being honest.” Then they change the subject and aren’t losing any sleep over it later.
If you’re willing to call the police sniper a murderer for acting to save lives — to paint him with the same brush as the hostage-taker – then you are holding to an ethical system that is so incredibly foolish and pointless that it doesn’t deserve to be called an ethical system in the first place, a system that has passed being AMORAL and become actively IMMORAL. Not to mention utterly useless.
It’s impossible to prove a hypothetical, but I find it hard to believe that there would not be any number of people and/or groups that would seek a “2nd amendment solution” to the government showing up on their doorstep tomorrow to take 10-year-old Johnny away to the gas chambers. Or that groups would not regularly be trying to blow up the gas chambers themselves.
That is the legal definition. You don’t get to make up your own legal definitions.
I’ve always thought that the majority of these so-called pro-life people were just spouting shit. Sure you’ll get the occasional true believers, but if babies were actively getting murdered every day, you’d think most people would do a little bit more than hold up signs.
There’s also the fact that liberal policies regarding sex education and contraception are proven to work, and if someone actually wanted to reduce abortions, they’d be all over helping Planned Parenthood, passing out condoms, etc. I mean, if they actually think babies are being killed, they’d settle for something a little milder even if it goes against their beliefs that it makes people promiscuous.
So I don’t believe their shit at all. Most of them are blowing smoke and I have no sympathy for them when they whine about saving babies. They don’t believe it, why should I?
Wait a second … if a woman wants an abortion … you would refuse her … but then [giggle], you’re okay with an avowed murderess raising the child alone … that makes no sense at all.