Perhaps because they believe that more violence is not the answer?
:rolleyes:
Oh, and one more thing-if one is truly “pro-life”, then wouldn’t killing a doctor be WRONG because it would be KILLING?
D’uh.
zwaldd, you dumbass.
Bob Cos, I would, if nothing else, support action to end what I considered human rights abuses anywhere. But if Burner is incorrect, then there are people walking around that wouldn’t even support the idea of physically stopping a woman from handing her child to a doctor to shred it to pieces, around the corner from their own house! I don’t personally know anyone (at least male) that wouldn’t respond to a punch in the face with a punch back, even with the possibility of a night in jail, but apparently there is a faction of people out there who wouldn’t lift a finger to stop the systematic killing of innocent children in their own backyard, because they don’t want to go to jail and/or they figure eventually our legal system will get around to it.
**But you said this:
**You seem sane to me. Why aren’t you descending upon an appropriately bloodthirsty dictatorship to do your part to abolish said injustice? Why aren’t you risking your liberty and your safety to eradicate, as best you can, human rights abuse?
I support the use of non-violent protest to prevent abortion, even up to the point of blocking the entrance to an abortion facility. OK, now that you have a pro-lifer who said as much, what exactly is your point? Explain to me again why BURNER deserves even a half-hearted defense for claiming all pro-lifers kill doctors and won’t adopt?
The problem with this is violence isn’t the only option, which is what you seem to be saying. As I said I can see why it would be an option to certain minded people, but at least in this post (to me) you seem to be positing that the only way to change a system is through violence, which isn’t true.
I guess, but ‘pro-life’ as it applies to the abortion debate is just about abortion rights, not life in general, you worthless ass-pimple.
So why does a baby get more of a right ot life than an adult? Murder is murder, and by murdering the doctor, aren’t you just as guilty as the doctor? I mean, you didn’t have to kill the doctor? Why not try talking to the doctor first?
Because unlike pro-lifers, I don’t have the name of the abuser, the exact address where the abuse is taking place, unrestricted access to the facility, and it isn’t anywhere from a short walk to a five minute drive from my front door. I don’t even know what the specific abuses are - half the stuff you hear is propaganda, and half the stuff nobody owns up to. But if there are what I consider to be human rights violations taking place, I still support action taken by those with the information and means to do so.
Because half of his comment (conveniently the half you chose to omit), was “prevent women from going into clinics”. That’s why he deserves a half-hearted defense.
Wow. Thanks for clarifying my ethical framework for me sparky. It’s good to know that you have a better understanding of my pro life ethics than me. :dubious:
Thanks.
Yes, and “property rights” as they apply to real estate are just about real estate. Does that really lead you to believe that someone believes “property rights” apply to real estate alone? Kind of a leap isn’t it?
**Right. There probably aren’t human rights abuses in Iraq. Gotcha. You are not in any way being hypocritical.:rolleyes:
Oh, bullshit. You didn’t provide a “half-hearted defense” by virtue of supporting BURNER only for half his statement. You said:
**Don’t backpedal. Sheesh, talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, for pete’s sake, “Pro-Life” in an abortion debate only implies that you don’t support abortion rights. It doesn’t exclude the possibility that you have other views. If you are pro-life to the point where you wouldn’t stop one single person from killing dozens of people day after day, then IMO, your “pro-life” stance is more harmful to life than that of someone who is willing to sacrifice one violent individual to save hundreds or thousands of innocent lives.
zwaldd: It’s possible to believe that abortion is simultaneously morally wrong and at the same time not murder. Not all pro-lifers consider abortion murder.
:eek:
But you’re not actually saving hundreds or thousands of lives, all you are doing is killing a doctor. The problem with the above scenario is you think your job is done. The only way to make sure the person doesn’t have an abortion is to kill them, and why not? Evidently life isn’t really a priority.:rolleyes:
OK, you tell me the exact address where the violations are taking place, exactly what the violation is, exactly what I’d need to do to access it, and exactly who I need to deal with, then I will tell you if I have the resources to take action. Because I can certainly provide a name and address and walk you to the door and introduce you to the proprietor of a place that pro-lifers would consider a human chop shop. I can even provide you with the necessary tools for killing that proprietor and burning down his facility.
That was a question, not a comment. How am I backpedaling? In the absence of a helpful justice system, I would have no problem taking out a doctor who ripped the arms and legs off a 5 year old with a vacuum. So far no pro-lifers have admitted to supporting killing abortion doctors, but one has admitted to supporting blocking clinics. Apparently beagledave would rather have innocent babies killed than stain his hands or his mind by either shooting the doctor or supporting such an act. I still haven’t heard his views on blocking a clinic, but if he’s even against THAT, I would say that his claim to be ‘pro-life’ is a bit frivolous. If he supports blocking a clinic, then we have two pro-lifers supporting half of Burner’s statement. Again, go back to my original comment…it was a SLIGHT DEFENSE…i.e. I thought part of what he said may be true. I didn’t at the time realize there might be people who thought abortion=murder, but wouldn’t even support the idea of blocking a clinic. I am still not sure if there are, but let’s hear from them.
**Nonsense. If you accept that these crimes against humanity are taking place, you figure out how to do all you can to remedy them. That may not as be clear-cut, but it is certainly do-able. If you can’t even research how to do so, then your moral commitment is weak indeed.
**But do you posit that this, and only this, is a reasonable way to oppose abortions? Can’t you accept that pro-life beliefs could include the notion that killing a doctor is wrong? This ain’t that tough.
BURNER proposed that all pro-lifers (among other things) killed doctors. This is idiotic. You offer as a “defense” that “real” pro-lifers would and should support the killing of doctors–meaning, I suppose, that BURNER’s opinion is not so far-fetched. Many have responded to you that they are pro-life and do not support killing doctors BECAUSE THEY ARE PRO-LIFE.
Explain how that philosophy is logically inconsistent. Please do NOT explain, yet again, how it isn’t personally satisfying to you, how you would react much more violently. Explain how it it impossible FOR ANYONE to hold this view logically. Because that’s the only argument that supports your position, which is just slightly less ridiculous than BURNER’s.
At what point do you admit that you overstated your position?
A doctor that kills hundreds (maybe more) of children per year. And we already addressed the issue of other doctors - if abortion was the equivalent of putting a 5 year old in the wood chipper, they would most likely be taken care of by outraged citizens in their own community.
The only way to make sure anyone doesn’t kill someone is to kill them. You don’t know that the mother will still kill her child, and even if she did, I can see the logic in not killing one person to save one person. But when you have a house where the doctor is actively killing many children, admits it, will be doing it again tomorrow, and the legal system will not intervene, taking or supporting action to stop him is justifiable, IMO.
Is there such a thing as a legitimate abortion? If the woman is going to die if she has a child, and she needs an abortion-where is she supposed to go if all the doctors are dead?
Why don’t we know she will still abort the fetus? I don’t think her personal attachment to a particular doctor is going to make a difference.
Women will continue to get abortions, even if it is illegal to do so. The doctor is there to make sure the potential mother doesn’t die. Once again, just because you murder one doctor, doesn’t mean that the woman wouldn’t still get the abortion. The only thing killing the doctor would do is prevent her from getting the abortion at that doctors office.
How about this: Are you willing to take care of all of the doctor’s client’s children (or even one of them)? Or do you think that would be too much to deal with and murdering the doctor would be much easier?
Where is she going to go if abortion is outlawed period? Don’t forget that I’m pro-choice. I don’t think abortion=murder, I wouldn’t block a clinic or shoot a doctor, and I wouldn’t support outlawing abortion. Arguments that only apply to abortion, but not to killing a 5 year old, do not support the idea that abortion=murder, that a fetus deserves the same consideration as a young child or a grown man. Meatros, you demonstrated an understanding of my point a ways back, and your arguments are starting to lean toward the pro-choice side, which isn’t what I’m debating here, so I’m going to address Bob Cos.
I can accept that. I will concede that there are pro-lifers who live next door to a clinic where babies are violently sucked apart through a vacuum hose that would rather let babies die by the dozens than support the killing of the murderer himself, in hopes that Roe v Wade will someday be overturned. But part of Burner’s statement, the part you still refuse to type but remains nonetheless, was that pro-lifers block clinics. beagledave agreed that supporting such an action was arguably involving yourself in it in some part; you may not agree, I don’t know. But I will not accept that someone who, to put it in terms I can relate to as a pro-choicer, lives in a community where there is a clinic to which mothers bring their five year old children to be shredded to death, would not at the very least, support the actions of those who block the doors of such a horrendous practice. If you want to tell me that pro-lifers, in the context of the abortion debate, do not equate abortion with the murder of a five year old child, then I will concede that my definition of ‘pro-life’ is overly simplistic. Otherwise, admit that part of what Burner said is true, or claim that support of an action does not in any way implicate you in the action.
I must have told you a million times, don’t exaggerate.