That’s funny. I’m pretty much pro-life, but I don’t recall ever killing abortion doctors and stopping women from entering an abortion clinic.
On generalizations though, I am quickly liking the idea that, before someone can post on the SDMB, they must sit in a room for twelve straight hours with a stereo playing Billy Mays yelling “MAKING GENERALIZATIONS OF ALL MEMBERS OF A GROUP BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF A FEW IS WRONG”.
Exactly…he could have cleared up that possible "confusion (after 3 posters pointed it out)…and said…well I didn’t really mean that all pro life folks do those things…especially after being shown evidence to the contrary.
But no…he specifically insists on still holding that position because we happen to differ on the abortion issue.
How else does one describe such a stand except stubborn ignorance?
Er…put down the philosophy 101 book. I’m not creating a logical fallacy, I’m gathering info before coming to a conclusion.
No, I’m implying that if beagledave would support violence against serial baby-rapers, then he probably supports violence against serial baby killers, which would justify Burner’s comment.
On preview, beagledave has responded. He is anti-death penalty, however it is easy to be anti-death penalty in a world where murderers are put in prison for life. We’re talking about the continued legal murder of innocent children. The killer admits to the acts he commits, we know exactly where and when he does them, and we know that he will do it again tomorrow. I can’t believe that anyone who truly considers abortion to be murder would not approve of doing whatever is necessary to stop it. Can you really justify standing by and doing nothing while a doctor kills baby after baby? Do you not at least approve of blocking access to the ‘slaughterhouse’? I believe that anyone who is content to just call themselves ‘pro-life’ without taking action or at least supporting immediate action either does not really equate abortion with murder, or is pacifistic to the point where they must share the blame.
Let me get this straight.
BURNER accuses me of being someone who responds in a violent way to the abortion issue…and so doesn’t take my position seriously. “All these pro lifers make me laugh…”
YOU, another pro choicer, accuse me of not being violent enough in my response to abortion…and so don’t take my position seriously.
Am I missing anything here?
:rolleyes:
You may be missing the fact that Burner and zwaldd, while both pro-choicers, are not in fact the same person, and so they have (albeit both ridiculous, IMHO) different views.
Or maybe I’m missing something. 
Daniel
Attention war protestors:
It seems highly likely that the Bush administration will probably approve the use of lethal force in Iraq. Many of you are worried about the murder of innocent men, women and children that will no doubt happen as a result of these actions.
Unless you take some proactive action and actively seek and take “immediate action” against the parties who will be doing the killing, it’s safe to say that you don’t really consider the actions of the military to be killing…and that you must share the blame.
Please take up arms and kill a G.I. …or better yet, someone in the Bush administration.
At the very least, cheer when someone else does the killing.
It’s what **zwaldd ** would want before he/she will take you seriously.
Thank you.
Your implication is coming from a faulty premise though. Also, beagledave hasn’t given any reason for you to imply that. Why would you think that beagledave would support violence? Are you basing that notion on the fact that he is pro-life?
Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.
Again, this is your opinion of what one should do, and only that, an opinion.
I hate the tactic of “If you aren’t with us, you are against us”. It’s dubious in nature.
Don’t you think that a better tactic for pro-lifers would be to try to effect the law, in the way of voting, as opposed to being arrested (and possibly having their voting power stripped away) for some sort of violent behavior?
Yeah, Dave, I think you are missing something. Burner is being a bit of a dumbass, and anyone reading the other threads already knows this. You’re kind of beating a dead horse here.
Zwaldd isn’t accusing you of anything. He’s just trying to get a feel for whether you think abortion is murder, or you think it’s wrong but not truly murder, or if you just think it’s icky, or what. If you do truly believe that it’s murder, he has room to reasonably accuse you of hypocrisy, but he can’t make any decisions about you until you answer the question. So, do you think abortion is murder, or not?
You agreed that if you supported the violence, you would share some blame. I argued that anyone who equates abortion with murder either supports action to stop it, at least to the point of blocking clinics (which halfway supports Burner’s argument),or is so pacifist that they must share the blame.
No, since you are saying that you don’t support immediate action to stop abortions, you either don’t really consider it murder, or are so pacifistic that you are willing to let innocent babies die by the dozens while you wait for public opinion to sway your way, which IMO makes you share the blame for the carnage in the meantime. If you don’t consider abortion murder, then I believe that your condemnation of forceful action is appropriate, and your definition of ‘pro-life’ is different than mine, which is the stance that abortion=murder.
I didn’t state a premise, I asked him a question. I didn’t assume he approved of violence, I asked him if he approved.
Not if they equate abortion with murder. I’m not a violent person, if it suddenly became known that there was a slaughterhouse for say, five year olds around the corner, and the courts refused to stop it for some bizarre reason, I’d be right in the middle of the torch weilding mob.
Alright the hampsters ate my original post so here goes a repeat: I think I am misreading you and applying a motive to what you are asking. For this I apologize.
If I’m not violent, and loathe murder, and I equate abortion with murder, then I don’t think I would join a torch weilding mob. Frusteration would kick in, surely, but I don’t think if I’m against violence/murder that committing violence and murder would correct the situation.
No, you are saying that action should to at least some extent support the use of violence as well. You said;
**You certainly couldn’t suggest there are no pro-life activists. So how else can your words be interpreted, that anything short of violence is not true commitment? That prick Gandhi was a hypocrite that way, too. I can’t understand why anyone ever listened to that jerk-off.:rolleyes:
(Hey, did I just compare beagledave to Gandhi? I think the world of Dave, but come on…
)
That’s a pickle, isn’t it? You’re against murder, yet you’d be willing to let innocent babies be murdered day in and day out rather than take it upon yourself to stop it, or even support those willing to take action. The concept of taking one guilty life to save countless innocents has no meaning to you. I pose my analogy to you then. If those babies were being raped, would you feel the same way? Just let it continue because it would be wrong to take physical action to stop it? Or is rape worse than murder?
Meatros, I missed that ‘if’ stuck in there. In that case, take my comment as the moral dilemma I think a person with such beliefs would face.
Now wait right there a sec. I didn’t say that I wouldn’t support those willing to take action. I said that I wouldn’t support violence , there is a difference. Also, I’m not “letting” innocent babies be murdered day in and day out. As I see it, I don’t have much of a choice in the matter if I want to stay free and on the streets in a position to make policy changes in order to change the laws.
You are presenting an either or situation here. There are other alternatives you realize. Whether raped or murdered makes little difference (although there is one) in how I would react; in neither situation would I choose a violent alternative where peaceful ones are present. What good is me being behind bars, to the movement? Yes, one doctor may be off the streets, but what about the others? Wouldn’t it be better to try to stop all of them instead of just one?
BTW-I’m not pro-life. I’m pro-choice, although morally I think I’m undecided. For me the question of pro-life, pro-choice, hasn’t been fully answered yet and remains to be seen. As I said though, currently I am on the side of the womans right to choose.
Okay, putting myself in different shoes: Let’s say I’m not necessarily non-violent, I’m an average Joe, when shoved I get pissed. When hit, I get into a fight. I can see one life saving a thousand.
If I am that man, and I feel abortion=murder, then the likelihood of violence being the answer to the abortion problem would go up considerably. I don’t know if I’d seek it out (by attacking a doctor), but I could see getting into a confrontation at a rally, or another type event, losing my cool and going to far.
Fair enough. How long would you allow the killing to continue while you waited for the tide of public opinion and legal maneuvering to come around before you finally said enough is enough? Ten years? Twenty? How long has abortion been legal in this country? I personally would not have the stomach to watch five year olds being marched through one side of a clinic and coming out as chopped meat on the other for more than a couple seconds. And as far as the effect on one doctor when there are many to deal with, I think in the absence of immediate court action, such slaughterhouses as I described would be quickly descended upon and destroyed by every sane, abled-bodied man, woman, and child within a few hours.
And at the very least you’d probably support the idea of blocking access to clinics, which beagledave agreed would make you partly responsible, which to circle back to my original point, would put you at least partially in the camp described by Burner. And as I said, my comment was a slight defense, not a blanket approval.
If I opposed abortion, then (seeing as I don’t believe violence is the answer), then I don’t think the timeline has much to do with it. I would do my best to get the laws changed, and if after a period of time (I’m not sure how much), I think I would leave this country, rather than enact a violent solution. I’d move to a country that doesn’t support abortion.
In this second scenario: I’d probably support blocking access to clinics, which could lead to violence. I’m not sure where the responsibility would lie. If I were that man, I’m sure I would place all the responsibility on the clinic (after all, without abortion it wouldn’t be there); however, since I am not that man I can see at least partial blame.
As I stated earlier, although now looking back I take away my “think”, and I fully put in place: I misread your intentions. A slight defense, is what I think was the major point that I missed.
Okay, let’s play your game then. Why isn’t your ass on a plane right now to Iraq, or North Korea, or any of the other tyrranical and bloodthirsty dictatorships in the world? Don’t you believe the reports regarding the horrible human rights abuses?
If you do, why aren’t you on a plane right now, out to do whatever good you can do before you’re arrested? Any reply short of “I’m on my way,” it seems to me, makes you a hypocrite who likes to occupy a moral high ground you have no right to.