ahem
**This is from you:
**I responded with this:
**So you’re a liar in saying that I refuse to include that portion of the debate in my posts.
**Show me the post you’re referring to. At this point I don’t believe a word you’re saying.
**Yes, and you felt the same way regarding killing the doctors. So stop pretending that your position rests solely on a reluctance Dave or anyone else has regarding the blocking of an entrance to an abortion clinic. That was NOT the “partial” endorsement you gave BURNER, and you are even more of a liar if you continue to advance this falsehood. Your contribution is the very definition of backpedaling (“Well, no, what I really meant was…”). It’s a bitch, though, debating in a written medium, where you can’t revise what you said, ain’t it? And you said:
**You did not say ANYTHING at all, until later, when several posters handed your ass to you, about how it’s really just the “blocking the door” issue that’s the real key to your argument. You’re a liar.
You admitted that YOU would block clinics, but you omitted the fact that BURNER stated that pro-lifers block clinics in this post, and you did it again when you said “BURNER proposed that all pro-lifers (among other things) killed doctors”. So don’t sit there calling me a liar when your own lie is right in front of your face.
Here ya go:
beagledave 01-20-2003 08:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by zwaldd
BTW, I agree that Burner’s comment was false, but some would argue that to support atrocities makes you involved to some extent. Look at the arguments on either side of the middle east debate.
Actually, you’re right.
If I had supported violence against doctors, women, or clinic workers…then I would have some culpability.
[/quote]
That was a QUESTION to beagledave to see how he rationalizes his views while disagreeing with Burner’s statement. And once again your lying ass omits the key comment, “BTW, I agree that Burner’s comment was false”, that PROVES that I did not intend to support Burner’s entire statement, but as I said, and you somehow omit, “as a SLIGHT DEFENSE.” First two words I posted. Did I intend to unconditionally support BURNER’s entire statement by SLIGHTLY DEFENDING him and by DISAGREEING with his statement? Why don’t you quit throwing stones from your glass house and ADMIT that BURNER’s statement was not ENTIRELY false. And if you want to quote his statement to rebut, make sure you include the ENTIRE statement, bd’s acknowledgement that support=responsibility,my initial acknowledgement that “Burner’s comment was false”, and a quote from at least ONE pro-lifer that equates abortion with murder who would not at least support blocking a clinic. Hey, read the fucking posts before you state “I don’t believe a word you’re saying”, because otherwise you look like a lying putz when they’re stuck right there in front of you.
She could go to unlicensed doctors, back alley surgeons and the like.
I know you are pro-choice, I may get a little zealous in my responses though. Let me understand this though, you are saying that not all life is equal (From the pro-lifer’s view)? Do you think that someone could be passionately pro-life, intensly so, but not be violent? Or do you think intensely passionate pro-lifers are generally (not all of them) geared toward violence?
I did understand your point a while back, but I think I’m getting a little befuddled by your debate with Bob Cos. BTW, I’m pro-choice, always have been. The reason I disagreed initially was because I thought the premise Burner brought up was wrong (and I missed the part where you said “slight”).
Here’s an interesting thing, Bob Cos.
You said in your last post: "You did not say ANYTHING at all, until later, when several posters handed your ass to you, about how it’s really just the “blocking the door” issue that’s the real key to your argument. You’re a liar."
However, looking back at my posts, I see that in my SECOND POST, after ONE reply, I said “Do you not at least support the act of blocking clinics to prevent innocent children from being murdered?” So this is what you call ‘later, when several posters handed your ass to you’? My second post after one reply? Again, read the damn posts and quit with your bullshit responses.
OK Bob Cos:
From my THIRD post: Do you not at least approve of blocking access to the ‘slaughterhouse’?
FOURTH post: 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.
My second, third, and fourth posts all suggest that true ‘pro-lifer’ will, IF NOTHING ELSE, support blocking clinics.
Therefore, Bob Cos, can we hear a retraction of this comment:
You did not say ANYTHING at all, until later, when several posters handed your ass to you, about how it’s really just the “blocking the door” issue that’s the real key to your argument. You’re a liar.
Or are you going to stand by your PROVEN LIES and require someone to bail you out with a SLIGHT DEFENSE? Ironic, no?
It doesn’t seem to me like any of the pro-lifers really have a defense for their own hypocrisy on the issue of killing doctors. Let me ask the question this way:
Let’s say you have a gun and you have good aim. You have a man in your sights who is about to plunge a dagger into the heart of newborn baby. Would you be morally justified in pulling the trigger to stop the murder?
If so, then the obvious question is why isn’t it morally justified to pull the trigger on a doctor who is about to perform an abortion. You are the ones who say there is no moral difference between a zygote and a teenager, so why won’t you pull the trigger on a dirty, murdering abortionist?
Either you don’t really believe your own bullshit about a fetus being a person, or (the far more likely explanation) you just don’t have the fucking guts. For all your grandstanding prayer circles, when it comes right down to a choice between letting a fetus die or tossing a salad in prison, all of a sudden, the fetus is on its own.
Here’s a reason: because killing the doctor doesn’t solve anything. It’s not as if there are some set number of abortion doctor that we’re counting down on. Because I don’t believe that violence/murder is the right path, I therefore seek alternate methods of persuading women to choose life for their children. These methods include: increased involvement in adoption/foster care systems, nonviolently blocking abortion clinic doors, providing counseling for women who are pregnant and don’t want to be, attempting to get the government to withdraw it’s support of abortion by outlawing it, etc. Killing doctors is not the only solution here; in fact, it’s not a solution at all.
So you don’t believe it would be justified to kill one doctor to save one baby? Why not? Why are you making a decision to let that baby die if you don’t have to?
Also, there is no way to “non-violently” block access to abortion clinics. if you physically try to restrain a woman from exercising her rights, you are committing violence against that woman. It’s disgusting that you think you have that right.
Abortion, however, is socially sanctioned and (according to a recent gallup poll, supported by 70% of the population) as such my action would, although it would save the children who would’ve been aborted that day, be utterly worthless in the long run as the women in question only need to schedule an appointment somewhere else, or go to an unlicensed practitioner.
To address your question more thoroughly, imagine I was an anchent Incan and the man with the knife was a high priest performing a sacrifice that was sanctioned by society as a whole. Do you think that, in the long term, my act of killing the high priest would in any way have changed Incan society, or would it have simply been a fast way to the Sacrificial alter for myself to fill in for the newborn until they found another one?
Far better to use reason to change the law then become a vigilante and turn public opinion towards the law while ultimately solving nothing.
I agree. I also don’t think, from the prolifers POV, that the doctor is the source of the problem. Instead of addressing the source, which could be done in a variety of non-violent ways, hostile pro-lifers take the quicker, less involved (IMO) way out and just attack a doctor. I would think the better, both morally and legally, way to do it would be to try to instruct the women who are thinking about getting abortions.
Ultimately I think you are right in the violent blocking of abortion clinics.
What I don’t understand is why is blocking a clinic the first thing thought of?
If I was pro-life, then I would try to change the morals of the people (to selfishly match my own), I would try to change the laws, I would plaster signs where ever I could, the last thing I would do would be to confront someone about it. If someone confronted me, in a violent “you won’t do this” manner, you know what? I would do it, I wouldn’t even think about whatever the person trying to block me said. If someone came up to me with compassion and tried to understand my situation, perhaps listing alternatives, I would listen to them a great deal more. Unfortunately that takes compassion, time, and understanding, which is a tall order to give to a stranger.
I never thought I would see pro-choicers argue in favor of killing abortionists.
Nonsense. Superglue the locks, picket in front of the clinics, stage a sit-in - all the ways the civil rights movement showed could work.
People have the right to protest abortion, just like they have the right to burn the flag.
Think of a restriction you would impose on anti-abortion protesters. Would you agree to have the same restriction applied to the movement against war with Iraq?
Regards,
Shodan
Without actually entering the fray, I’d just like to point out a legal point on self-defense/defense of others. For a self-defense or defense of others claim to be valid, there must be a threat of imminent harm. Thus, if you heard Bob was planning on plunging a dagger into the heart of a baby tomorrow, you would not have a valid defense to killing Bob right then and there. You pretty much have to catch him in the act. Thus, for the analogy to be valid, you pretty much would have to kill Al the Abortionist either during the procedure itself or perhaps during the immediate preparations thereto.
Of course, that’s just how self-defense/defense of others is handled legally. Morally it is obviously open to much wider interpretation (the whole “would you kill Hitler as a child if you could” thing).
Nor I…It’s an odd board…
I think the point was if you are physically trying to block the clinic/not let anyone in, or at least that’s how I read it. But even so, superglueing the locks is still illegal (destruction of property), and a sit in (if they obstruct, or otherwise prevent the woman from getting to her doctor) could lead to violence, as could picketers. While leading to violence doesn’t necessarily equate to violence, the possibility for verbal abuse is almost 100 percent. Being screamed and yelled at can be very tramatizing.
How about not interferring with people entering a clinic. The moment they impede the process of an individual trying to enter a hospital is the restriction.
Any attempt to physically interfere with the civil rights of another person is, by definition, an act of violence. It is not analogous to war protesting because war protesters are not fucking with other people’s rights.
And isn’t it ironic that the poltical wing wing which is most self-righteous about abortion is also the most eager to go set children on fire in Iraq?
C’mon, Meatros. You were perfectly capable of understanding my point yesterday, why now agree that the argument was in favor of killing abortionists?
You said: 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.
That doesn’t mean you advocate blocking clinics or blame the clinic for the violence. The point was that it’s inconsistent to equate abortion with murder and not at least support immediate measures to stop it. I made the argument to demonstrate that it was not entirely unreasonable for BURNER (a pro-choicer) to generalize that all “pro-lifers” would at least support such measures, in an attempt (I assume) to cast dispersions on pro-lifers in a previous thread. Does that make a little more sense, Shodan?
I did understand you point yesterday, and maybe I misinterpreted Shodan, but I thought he was referring to all the pro-choicers (myself included) putting forth arguments in favor of killing abortionists. I saw Shodan’s comment more along the lines of isn’t it weird that pro-choicers are putting themselves in the other side’s shoes, not as a condemnation. Granted the rhetoric of “killing abortionists” is a little harsh (I didn’t take it as serious), I meant my comment in a light way.
Hmmm. You may be right. And this: I also don’t think, from the prolifers POV, that the doctor is the source of the problem is a good point. However, if the doctor isn’t the source of the problem, then how would banning abortion help? You don’t eliminate the demand for abortion, you only take away the safest means. It seems to me that the goal of banning abortion is consistent with the goal of eliminating doctors from the equation. Any pro-lifers out there that don’t want abortion banned?
It does.
But I don’t think the logic is so iron-clad as to force pro-lifers into being considered logically inconsistent by rejecting violence. Any more than it is logically inconsistent, necessarily, to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, or pro-abortion and anti-war in Iraq.
You could argue (and many do) that violence in reaction to violence is wrong, and therefore killing abortionists does more harm than good. Or maybe that it is better to stay out of prison and have more opportunities to change the hearts and minds of the US on the topic of abortion.
The Allies in WWII, for instance, did not bomb Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen. They felt, rightly or wrongly, that their resources were better spent killing soldiers who were at least marginally more innocent than the concentration camp soldiers (since they fighting on the front instead of gassing Jews) than acting directly against the horrors of the camps.
You could even make an argument that pro-choicers are also bound by the logic of your “abortion is murder, therefore killing the murderers is morally justified” argument. Therefore, pro-choicers cannot condemn those who kill abortionists either, since those who kill abortionists are acting in defence of morality. The killers may be mistaken in their belief that a fetus is a separate human life (although I don’t think pro-choicers can necessarily establish this with the same logical rigor), but they are acting in accordance with their understanding of morality.
I assume you would include acts against freedom of speech - say, for instance, shouting down a politician with whose views you disagree, riots against the WTO, forbidding prayer and protest on a sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic, and so forth.
If there is anything to be learned from the history of abortion in the US, it is that neither side has any monopoly on self-righteousness.
For the record, I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-consideration of war to disarm Iraq. I don’t see any conflict among these views.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan