People who do bomb an abortion clinic try to justify it by clinging to the belief that they are saving hundreds of unborn lives by committing a single act of vandalism. That makes them heroes in their own minds.
However, they are guilty of a crime. To top it off, they are playing God. There are no “safe” explosive surprise attacks, so you are also guilty of risking other people’s lives. Personally, I don’t see how you can’t see the taking of an unborn life as killing, but try and make your point peacefully. I’m tired of “pro-life” having a negative connotation. That’s another thing these people are guilty of, they are hurting their own cause.
theretsof,
I believe morality is backstage in this society. If you passed around a ballot “should we outlaw abortions” all the respondants would answer according to their heartfelt moral fiber. if the same anouncement said “come down to the abortion clinic this saturday and stand around all day and lets stop the 12 abortions planned for that day” most people (99%) would say “what and miss the football game”
thats my question. why? they care and would vote against it but they don’t care strong enough about it to do anything substantial.
I think we need to realize that when we are forced with moral decisions in the next months or years. ie: how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice to wipe out a terrorist nest?
I am passive/aggressive according to my wife. Is that bad? If I am mad at her I think she wants me to throw something instead of just sulk passively.
Hmmm … so then, you don’t believe a fetus has the same rights as a human that can breathe on its own, then. (A fetus produced by rape is just as much of a living fetus as one produced by consensual sex.)
But suppose you wanted to enforce this policy. Fetuses who are the product of rape or failed contraception may be aborted, but fetuses that are the product of irrseposnible consensual sex are not. Right? Okay, then, a pregnant woman walks into a clinic, and wants to have an abortion. How does she prove that she conceived the baby through rape? And if she conceived it through consensual sex, how does she prove that she used contraception?
Moral or immoral, the legal ramifications of such restrictions are staggering.
Then it does all come down to morals after all now doesn’t it? If women and men had more morals and cared about abstinence we would cut down on abortions dramatically.
I bet if the laws changed to a more Orwellian scene where if one did act loosely they’d go to jail or get shotdown in the square, we’d see humans behaving in a whole different light. Morals would shoot off the board!!
If you do something because otherwise you get “shotdown in the square” it’s not really morals controlling your actions, now is it?
Please read what you write. Your argument doesn’t make much sense from a legal, moral, or practical level. Don’t forget, for more most people “Orwellian” is a bad thing.
Because “most people” realize that antagonizing other folks for doing something that they think is morally wrong is rude, crude, and improper. Despite what you may wish to assert, there is no agreed-upon definition for when a fetus becomes a human being, hence determining the rightness/wrongness of abortion is left to each individual.
RJUNG,
murder is the opinion part? would you give me that abortion is stopping a living thing from living? in other words it is “killing”. so can we agree that “abortion is killing”?
Yes, justinh, it is killing in the same sense that surgical removal of a cancerous tumor is killing. A mass of living cells is removed from a human body because the human, whose body that mass inhabits, does not want it there.
Let’s look at the other end of life. If you are unlucky enough to end up on a vent, and the doctor and your next of kin agree that your outlook is not good and your quality of life sucks, they can “pull the plug.” We don’t generally say the doctor killed you, nor do we accuse your family of murder. Now, sneak in during the middle of the night and turn someone’s vent off and its a different matter.
Pregnancy is providing life support. Remove life support, fetus dies. No doubt about it. The question is “why should I be required to provide life support?”
One of the reasons I’m pro-choice is because I feel very strongly I do not want to be on life support for any extended period of time.
Another thing that bugs me-they blow up the clinic, okay?
And there are people there-patients, about to have abortions.
Aren’t these people by their own admissions, baby killers too, as they kill the mother and the unborn child? (NOT that I agree with that, just that wouldn’t that occur to these morons? Hmmmm…I probably just answered my own question…)
That strikes me as a specious analogy. A cancerous tumor does not have its own heartbeat, musculature, nervous system, photic reflexes, digits or sensory experiences. It does not exhibit any capacity for learning in utero, and it does not even have the same DNA structure. Heck, half the time it’s of the opposite sex as its mother!
We can argue about whether the unborn is a distinct human being, or even WHEN it becomes fully human. However, to baldly state that it’s just an unwanted “mass of living cells” is clearly a gross oversimplification.
fetus= cancerous growth
killing a fetus = unplugging the life support from a comatose terminal patient
and then there is this quote:
“I believe in abortion because I don’t want to be unplugged from life support when I am in a coma”.
I say a lot of outrageous things to get a rise but this is over the top. whoever said this is either a sarcastic genius or a taco short of a delux dinner.
I am sick of people starting threads about whether abortion is right or wrong, thinly veiled as threads about some remote and ridiculous point instead. Is it ok to bomb an abortion clinic? Well, it’s illegal, isn’t it? And I assume we’re talking about a place in which abortion is legal, otherwise one could merely report the clinic to the police. So we’re talking about doing something which the majority of people oppose, in order to protest something which the majority of people support. Obviously the debate all comes down to whether you think that abortion is murder and should then heroically take it upon yourself to save all those poor foetuses on the verge of being murdered. Well yes, according to your beliefs you probably should, and then according to the beliefs of everyone else, who don’t want to see bombs going off all day, you should also go to jail for it. A few foetuses are worth it, aren’t they? Never mind that you could have donated money to UNICEF to help already-born children instead.
Do you REALLY want to use this line of thinking to crticize these actions? I’ve seen the same line of thinking used to criticize pro life people in general.
Of course there was a time when women’s suffrage was a minority opinion…as was the ending of slavery, the ending of child welfare…perhaps even the anti-war movements of the '60s.
If you’re going to criticize something, do it on its’ own merits…not necessarily the “popularity” of the position.
(and no, I don’t support bombing abortion clinics)
I am not criticising something because it is unpopular, I’m criticising the use of illegal means to protest something which is legal. In fact I even say that people may be right, according to their own beliefs, in using such means, but that they should then be prepared to go to jail for it.
So, you definitely were opposed to the illegal actions of the Civil Rights protestors of the '60s,( you do remember MLK Jr being jailed, right?) …the illegal harboring of runaway slaves in the 1800s…
No, I’m not suggesting that these actions are the same as bombing an abortion clinic…but YOU set the bar at “legal” means, we’ll see if you keep it there.
