[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The obvious answer is that threatening to kill and infant is illegal. Performing an abortion is not.
Some pro-lifers would argue this is a technicality and say they are following a higher law.
[/QUOTE]
That’s my point though. If they truly believe what they say, shouldn’t they all be following that higher law?
I agree, Apos. I am surprised that a small faction of right wing fanatics haven’t organized a terrorist cell focused on wiping out abortion. I don’t know how many abortion clinics and doctors there are but if, say, 25% of all abortion doctors were killed in three years wouldn’t the other 75% seriously reconsider their future careers? Sure, the cell would have to murder a couple hundred people, but think of it, you’d be saving millions of children if the rates of abortion dropped by a decent amount over a couple of years.
This may go to show that, compared to the rest of the world, our extremists are extreme in name only. Thank Bob for that!
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
That’s my point though. If they truly believe what they say, shouldn’t they all be following that higher law?
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe. But considering that abortion rights ARE the law of the land, as I said, any violent action taken to prevent them would be an act of martyrdom. When comparing it to the Holocaust, look at it this way…we consider the people who risked their own lives to save innocent people to be heroes of the highest order…we do not take it as an assumption that one should risk his or her life to save another…those that do are lauded for bravery.
I also believe that despite my personal convictions on the subject, it is useless to try to force others to agree. The fact is, this is an issue that can easily be seen both ways, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is just being stubborn, IMO…there is simply no clear-cut answer.
But shouldn’t we expect SOME kind of heroism from someone who screams about moral outrages, holocausts, and so on, but then takes none of the actions we would expect to see all the time from a similar person in a similar situation with born children? Can’t we presumptively conclude that, at the very least, they are insincere about the depth of their rhetoric and being overly theatrical?
[QUOTE=Apos]
But shouldn’t we expect SOME kind of heroism from someone who screams about moral outrages, holocausts, and so on, but then takes none of the actions we would expect to see all the time from a similar person in a similar situation with born children? Can’t we presumptively conclude that, at the very least, they are insincere about the depth of their rhetoric and being overly theatrical?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know…what is required to be a “hero?” I work with an organization that helps women get on their feet (help with job training, finding affordable places to live, help with doctor bills, food, etc.), so that they do not have to have abortions they don’t want. Some of the people I know who work with this organization donate their time to the point of full-time (40+ hours a week) volunteerism. This work enables babies to be born to happy, productive mothers who are able to take good care of them. Are the people who do this volunteer work at the expense of their own opportunity to have a paying job not heroes?
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Someone is holding a knife to the throat of an infant. Killing that someone wouldn’t be considered murder either legally or ethically.
If one considers a fetus to be the equivalent of an infant, why would killing an abortionist be any different?
[/QUOTE]
Killing an abortionist would be considered murder. Why would someone be obligated to face a death penalty sentance in order to save someone else? It’s not the same thing at all.
I don’t know about “easier”, but it would be more understandable. However, I’d still expect even the most strident pro-lifer to differentiate between killing an abortionist as he is about to abort a fetus and killing the same guy as he arrives home at night. The latter would be more about revenge than it would be about prevention.
I should add this…going back to the Holocaust analogy…most of the people who harbored those sought by the Nazis saved maybe a few people at most. They were able to save those few because they laid low and did not challenge the status quo…any such action would have meant certain death, which would obviously prevent them from being any help to anyone. Isn’t it better to take an action to save a few? If I go try to kill an abortion doctor tomorrow, I will either get a long prision sentence or the death penalty. How will that save babies?
I vote, discuss & donate to pro-life causes. The cause will only succeed through winning over hearts and minds, and will be greatly hurt by vigilante actions.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Murder to prevent murder? Why would you think anyone was **obligated **to do that?
[/QUOTE]
Homicide to prevent murder isn’t murder. If a psycho is about to kill you and I shoot him dead, that’s not murder, it’s justifiable homicide.
Would you have gladly have killed people to save Jews from the Holocaust, slaves from slavery, Tutsis from slaughter in Rwanda? I would have. A person who claims fetuses are human persons (which I do not, I’m just playing devil’s advocate) logically should act in the same manner.
Pro lifers don’t like to follow this line of reasoning, of course, but it’s hypocritical not to. Consider Charger’s comment here:
[QUOTE=Charger]
Why spend the time/money/risk blowing up an abortion clinic? It may save a few fetuses, but it only be a drop in the bucket.
[/QUOTE]
But it’s NOT a drop in the bucket, if you think fetuses are human lives. You’re potentially saving one or more people from being murdered. 20,000 people are murdered every year in the United States, but would we all not agree that I would be doing a great service by killing the psycho who tries to murder John Mace? It’s only one in 20,000, but it’s worth it, is it not? Oskar Schindler is rightly considered a hero for saving about 1100 Jews during the Holocaust - a number that is about one hundredth of one hundredth of the number of people murdered by the Nazis, certainly a drop in the bucket. You think those 1,100 people think it was a meaningless act? Granted, Schindler didn’t kill anyone I can remember so it’s not a great comparison but if he’d offed a few Nazis, who’d have a problem with that? Not me.
Perhaps bombing a clinic is not cost effective since it’s high risk and might not even prevent any abortions - the patients can always go elsewhere. And there are other ways of fighting for a cause; Sarahfeena volunteers to help young mothers, for example. Many people fought the Nazis by building tanks and planes, or assisting in other industries, or selling war bonds, or hiding Jews in their homes, or doing any number of non-combat things. But to a degree, violent acts absolutely ARE morally justified, if you believe the pro-life position.
There is recognition of the rule of law, even when that law allows state sponsored execution of the innocent. You can work within the system to have such a unjust law removed.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Perhaps bombing a clinic is not cost effective since it’s high risk and might not even prevent any abortions - the patients can always go elsewhere. And there are other ways of fighting for a cause; Sarahfeena volunteers to help young mothers, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, what I do is also a drop in the bucket…never meant to toot my own horn by any means…there is more that I should do. Just was trying to give an example.
I wouldn’t necessarily argue that violent acts would not be morally justified in some sense. Whether they are logical or effective is another matter.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
*I am not pro-life myself, but would like to understand the mindset better. I am not advocating this position.
[/QUOTE]
Despite claims by the OP implying that this is a disinterested thought experiment, I notice that he uses the term “abortionist”. That’s generally a pro-life term; pro-choice people musually tend to use “provider”. Both terms are spin, of course, attempting to frame the debate through language. But “abortionist” is the kind of word typically used by people who have alkready made up their minds.
Sailboat
Are death penalty opponents morally obligated to forcibly enter prisons and violently prevent executions?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Homicide to prevent murder isn’t murder. If a psycho is about to kill you and I shoot him dead, that’s not murder, it’s justifiable homicide.
[/QUOTE]
And killing an abortionist is “justifiable homicide”? :dubious: Tell it to the judge!!
You can’t use a legal argument on the one hand and then a moral argument on the other. “Justifiable homicide” is a legal term, not a moral one.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Furthermore, I would consider myself obligated to stop that someone even if it means killing them.
[/QUOTE]
I think that the words of Greg Koukl apply in this case:
"This question needs to be answered clearly and directly and here is the answer. It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists. What follows is this: He would work to end the wholesale killing as expediently as possible. It doesn’t follow he would kill abortionists. It follows that he would do whatever he can to stop the killing as quickly as possible. Now, that may or may not entail the shooting of individual abortionists. The answer to that question would depend on other considerations.
How can that be? Well, anyone familiar with military tactics knows how such a thing can be the case. Life is lost on its largest scale during warfare and the objective in war is to accomplish the goals of the war as expediently as possible to end the large scale loss of life, right? Now, if the military objective is to end the war by–watch this–taking out the machinery of destruction, as a saboteur would do, and killing any individual soldier would put the larger plan in jeopardy, then the individual killer is bypassed rather than run the risk of sabotaging the entire mission.
…
What this illustration shows is that there is no necessary contradiction in the view that abortion is a holocaust, yet the killing of individual abortionists is properly condemned. In fact, it is precisely because we hold to the innocent humanity of the unborn that we insist on an approach to this solution that is directed at the machinery of the killing–the laws, the economics and the deep human need that makes the alternative appealing. That’s our focus. "
In other words, even if we grant that killing the abortion providers is morally justified, this still does not mean that pro-lifers have an obligation to do so… especially since such actions will ultimately do more damage than good.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Despite claims by the OP implying that this is a disinterested thought experiment, I notice that he uses the term “abortionist”. That’s generally a pro-life term; pro-choice people musually tend to use “provider”. Both terms are spin, of course, attempting to frame the debate through language. But “abortionist” is the kind of word typically used by people who have alkready made up their minds.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
If you’re implying that I’m somehow being dishonest, I have posted my opinions on abortion in previous threads. I’m not being disingenuous in the least. I’m decidedly pro-choice. I use the term “abortionist” to mean “one who performs abortions” and nothing more.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
In other words, even if we grant that killing the abortion providers is morally justified, this still does not mean that pro-lifers have an obligation to do so… especially since such actions will ultimately do more damage than good.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps “obligated” was the wrong word, and “justified” would have been preferable.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And killing an abortionist is “justifiable homicide”? :dubious: Tell it to the judge!!
You can’t use a legal argument on the one hand and then a moral argument on the other. “Justifiable homicide” is a legal term, not a moral one.
[/QUOTE]
So let’s again use an example. Killing an SS officer in Poland in 1943 was against the law; it would have been considered murder. Are you saying, therefore, it would have been morally wrong to do so to save the life of a Jew? If it’s justifiable, feel free to substitute whatever moral term equates to “justifiable homicide.”
Whether you like it or not, if it is morally acceptable to kill murderers to save innocent lives in one time and place, those morals apply elsewhere. If fetuses are human persons, equivalent to persons who are born, then killing to save a fetus is just as moral as killing to save a Jew, a Buddhist, a Japanese, or an American.
These guys think it’s perfectly appropriate to kill abortionists. They’re the extreme, but their actions have caused the number of abortionists to drop around 15% due to fear of violence.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
So let’s again use an example. Killing an SS officer in Poland in 1943 was against the law; it would have been considered murder. Are you saying, therefore, it would have been morally wrong to do so to save the life of a Jew? If it’s justifiable, feel free to substitute whatever moral term equates to “justifiable homicide.”
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m just saying that it would be wrong to say a person is “obligated” to kill the SS officer since he risks almost certain death himself. That’s all.
Maybe I should have been clearer in the origianl post which you responded to:
[Commit what is legally recoginzed as] Murder to prevent [what one person morally sees as] murder?
The OP is asking why everyone with a certain belief is not willing to sacrifice his own life for that belief. Seems like an odd thing to expect, as other posters have noted. And the OP has even reconsidered, prefering to use “justified” instead of “obligaited”.