Suppose I’m a sociopath, who happens to be rabidly pro-choice (or pro-abortion, whatever). I’d cheerfully kill anyone who stands in the way of my cause.
So…who do I kill? If I were against abortion, killing doctors who perform abortions would be a good target. But who exactly am I supposed to murder if I believe the opposite (aside from the fetuses of course)?
What do adoption agencies have to do with it? How would killing orphans help? It don’t make no sense. I suppose I could assassinate conservative supreme court justices, but abortion is still legal and shows every sign of remaining legal, so that won’t help.
If you’re willing to kill for legal abortion but abortion is legal, then there’s no reason to kill anyone.
No, the pro lifers want to force every single female into being a walking womb, without any consideration that they may not share the same views as they do. They have no consideration that not everybody is a christian [or whatever their particular religion is] and that there are circumstances other than health that would make it desirable to terminate.
And it is a fallacy that prolifers have more to fight for. They believe that saving every single fetus is worth saving - no matter what the conditions it has healthwise, and believe me - damned few people are willing to adopt an unhealthy infant, leaving that child as a ward of the state. Unadopted children do not get the level of care that an adopted child has, so they are being sentanced to a life of barely standard care.
If the damned prolifers were serious about it, every child not aborted would be adopted by one of them, no matter what its health condition or color. I really do not see that happening at this time, so they are pretty much hypocrites.
IMHO, opinion you also owe an apology to pro-choice people and to women who have had to endure unwanted pregnancy. It is NOT a “period without signicant discomfort”. I have known women in that position describe gestating the unwanted pregnancy as the equivialent of being raped 24-hours a day for months (and since these women had experienced gang-rang I accept their estimation as quite fair). For someone highly committed to population control and environmental protection forcing them to bare an unwanted pregancy would be in their mind forcing them to commit many murders because a new baby in the Western world consumes so many resources. Finally, for poor women living on the edge of a percarious economy forcing them to carry an unwanted pregancy could well jeopardize the family they already have. It is not just a “period without signicant discomfort.”
I think a better analogy than concentration camps would be states that utilize the death penalty. I am living in one right now and there is evidence that some of the people on our death row are probably not guilty. However, no pro-life groups are prepared to storm the prison and prevent these executions. Nor is any pro-life group threatening the staff of the prison or the officials conducting the executions. These lives are completely not worth their attention.
Last point first:
It was my understanding that there was a large and active movement in the US against the death penalty - obviously a group dedicated to stopping abortion would not campaign on the death penalty too, but I would be surprised if there wasn’t a crossover between both campaigns. Also, assuming that they treat all lives equally, the sheer number of people killed by abortion far outweighs the number killed by the state.
First point second:
Firstly, I said “most of that period without signicant discomfort”, referring of course to the term of the pregnancy. I knew one girl who was seven months pregnant before she noticed (that was a most unusual and unpleasent case though).
Secondly, your point about women who were gang-raped applies to only a fraction of the women who get abortions - I can understand that having their rapist’s child would be most unpleasent for women, but that doesn’t apply to the vast bulk of abortions.
As for a person so into “population control and environmental protection” who would see having a child as murder - that’s just sad. In general. No kid needed.
What is hypocritical about wanting to save a life without taking responsibility for that life. If pro-lifers feel that abortion is murder then of course they will try to stop it…much the same way you may try to stop the murder of a person from taking place. Neither scenario results in you being responsible for caring for the other person. Imagine you stopped a mother from killing her 2-year old. Are you autimatically responsible for raising that child?
No. But if she said she didn’t want the child and you forced her to keep it in her care and you’ve voted against any law that came up that might over mental health support to new mothers, then you might not be getting to the root of the problem. I’d say this could even be extended to saving the kid then putting it back with its mother, or releasing it into the wild. It is one brief moment, a goalie, and they think it’s the entire game.
50% of Americans adults (227,000,000 * .5) identify as prolife. There have been a total of five abortion doctors killed by an equal number of violent prolife advocates. What percentage of people who identify as prolife have killed abortion doctors?
50% of Americans adults (227,000,000 * .5) identify as prolife. There have been a total of 41 bombings and 173 arsons of/at clinics that provide abortions. Assuming that each clinic was bombed or set fire by a unique prolife advocate, what percentage of people who identify as prolife have bombed or set fire to abortion clinics?
That’s not fair at all. I would like to see more work from the pro-life side on solving the problems of adoption (and not being the same people who oppose gay adoption – not enough eyerolls for that one), but they’re not hypocrites for not adopting every single special-needs baby.
Think of it this way: they view any fetus, any conception, as a human life. If I put myself in the same position of your analogy: I’d consider myself in favor of not putting to death people with disabilities who can’t care for themselves, but I am neither willing nor able to provide care for such individuals myself at any cost. I respect their right not to be put to death for being disabled. Am I thus a hypocrite? No, I don’t think so.
I don’t think it’s fair to paint pro-life people so negatively, even if I don’t agree with them. The point of contention is really what defines a human life and what to do in the special case of a human life being wholly dependent on an often unwilling other human life. There’s really no easy answer to this.
My question is why you want to call one side what they desire to be called ‘pro-choice’ and for the other you chose a ‘pro-choice’ term of anti-abortion instead of what they desire to be called ‘pro-life’. At the very least you could chose a more fair term of ‘against the legal murder of your own child’ because that is how they view abortion.
My own personal view of abortion is that God is above abortion and most children of abortion are saved by God, and never go through the procedure, and it is only the woman that suffers, and she will get that child back, but a very few children do suffer through abortion, those God use greatly and help many.
Yes, there is; the position of the “pro-life” side is grossly evil. Calling a few cells a “human life” makes it no more valuable, and makes reducing a woman to an incubator for it no less tyrannical and disgusting. Being “pro-life” is the moral equivalent of supporting state mandated serial rape; they are trying to hijack the bodies of women for months on end. Would it be unfair to “paint pro-life people so negatively” if they were trying to mandate women be chained to beds and raped nine months straight? Because that’s morally equivalent to what they do want.
That’s not the only point of contention, and the fact that it is so often the focus of the debate is a tactical win for the pro-life contingent. To my mind it’s entirely irrelevant. The much more important question is what authority the state has over it’s citizens right to bodily integreity. And that is just as absolute an arguement without any murkiness of definition of life. But until the pro-choice contingent can effectively market their arguement, they’re going to continue to lose ground.
As to the OP, I’m of the opinion that sometimes extremeist violence can be effective in using terrorism to further your political agenda, so formenting a culture where it’s ok to assassinate the mega-church leaders of the religous right, and the founders of focus on the family and what not might prove to be a valid stragetic choice, it’s not the best moral choice. So let the bastards kill a few doctors, we’ll make more. And then we’ll paint the lifers as the three-toothed hillbilly, mysogynist, facist leaning, scourges to society that they truly are.
I think you are really reaching here. Adoption after birth is still an option. Yes, the mother must “support” the child until birth but then she is free and clear. Nobody is forcing a mother to raise a child.
