When I was a teenager, I went through a radicalized anti-abortion phase. I was indoctrinated in a church-run school to see abortions as arising from evil doctors that were legalized serial killers. I did, at least somewhat, believe that killing abortionists was justified.
But my conservationist side gave me doubts about the implications of the, “human life is always precious,” argument, & I got more & more pissed off at those pro-lifers who pooh-poohed my belief in the rights of non-human species. Then I heard some Christian leader admit on the radio that if he’d been in the shoes of the Chinese government, he might have had to support the one-child policy. But in this country, he was still arguing against abortion as even a legal option. I came to realize that I had to consider some things more important than abortion. I also came to realize that I couldn’t vote on that issue alone as those like my mother did, & that I disagreed with the corruption & general irresponsibility of the GOP.
In time, I came to realize that there was in no way an army of evil abortionists forcing women to undergo foeticidal operations. Instead, this was being driven by women themselves, & if we really wanted those babies to be born alive & healthy, we’d have to do a lot more than outlaw abortion. We’d have to lock women up away from alcohol & feed them folate.
Eventually, I found out that someone close to me had had an abortion once. And I really couldn’t condemn her. In the same position as my mom was when she was pregnant with me, she’d taken the other choice. And I could not see her as a murderer.
Indeed, most pro-lifers just can’t bring themselves to call a woman who has an abortion a murderer. So, for all the rhetoric, the split between pro-life & pro-choice is mostly talk.
It’s a long way out, but in the end, I’m really not interested in supporting anti-abortion laws at all.
I arrived a similar conclusion from the opposite direction.
All the rhetorical tricks from both sides drive me mad. Most of the “debate” (including the OP) seems to involve mis-characterizing the opposing side’s views to score points. Even the labels pro-choice and pro-life drive me mad.
I believe that life began a couple of billion years back and has continued in an unbroken stream ever since. A small bundle of human cells is a human life. A larger bundle - what doctors call a fetus - is a baby. Abortion is the killing of a human baby. Every abortion is a personal tragedy for someone. But…
…as long as the baby is inside the womb of its mother, I feel unqualified to substitute my moral judgment for hers and I trust a distant government even less.
Like the majority of people in America [cite], I think it makes sense to restrict the worst excesses and to leave the heart-rending decision to the mother, her spouse and her doctor. The law is too blunt an instrument to do any better in such a morally complex situation.
I have a fantasy that if the extremists at either poll would quit demonizing the other side as monsters we might all come to agree that abortion is a bad thing but that sometimes there are worse things than abortion.
I have no problem with you offering your opinion but I’d rather you didn’t answer a question posed to someone else as if you know what they’re thinking.
I’m aware intent is relevant to the crime but you are missing the real point. If the fetus is a person in the eyes of a pro choice person then the woman has committed a crime whether she believes it or not. We’re not debating what the woman who has the abortion believes. we’re discussing the beliefs of those who claim a fetus is a baby and abortion is killing babies.
The grand Dragon of the KKK may say a black man is not really a person. Does that mean he escapes murder charges?
What an incredibly convoluted and unnecessary example.
Look at my post you responded to. My specific words are serious crime rather than murder correct? I didn’t choose them by accident. Killing a person , even without the specific intent to do so is often a serious crime even when it isn’t premeditated murder.
I really appreciate this very thoughtful post. I think all life , even potential life, should be honored, but like you I see the decision as something personal and private between the woman , her own heart and conscience, and her doctors.
I don’t like the terms because I consider myself to be both pro life and pro choice. IMHO the best course is to support choice and provide care and options for women so hopefully fewer will feel abortion is their only viable option.
I used to work (many, many moons ago) for a nationally known women’s health clinic/family planning provider.
I can say without fear of contradiction that this is exactly how they feel about it. They are not in the “business” of providing abortions. They are in the business of family planning. Every baby a wanted baby as it were. They would be the first to cheer if no abortions ever happened again because everytime a woman got pregnant it was her choice and something she wanted. Granted such a utopia will likely never come to pass but the point being is allowing women to have control of their body and their life on their terms and provide the education and resources to make it so.
That IMHO is a very proactive positive approach and very useful way to be anti abortion.Abortion is not going away and IMO won’t ever be illegal again. Rather than try to remove someone’s choice try to offer more and different choices.
I don’t doubt that there are people who claim that abortion is murder. A small number of them probably even believe it. The leap to “then we should murder all abortionists” is not useful. I doubt even Linker believed it as he was typing it. It’s just an attempt to slur the pro-life movement.
On the other side, we hear that human life begins at conception, therefore abortion is equivalent to infanticide.
The overheated rhetoric is counter-productive on both sides.
I find the construct “If X really believed Y they should also believe Z” to be incredibly tiresome. It rarely leads to a rational discussion.
I wish I had not intimated that to be a “true” pro-lifer one needs to kill people who perform abortions. As has been noted in this thread other options exist. The point I sought to make was with such a profound issue (people murdering people) how could anyone be anything short of vehement in their opposition? Vehement to the point of civil disobedience…whatever form that may take. Some do engage in civil disobedience but if the issue is couched as murder then I would think the faction who thought so would be positively bouncing off the walls across the board in opposing this.
There are people in this thread who claim to view abortion as murder. As such I do not know that it is a fringe belief. The participants of this board tend to be high quality people who value intellectual honesty and fair debate. Hardly a fringe crowd.
So the question remains. If abortion is murder then how can pro-lifers who hold that opinion be anything short of incredibly activist on this issue? Is there some definition of “murder” I am unaware of?
Ultimately I started this thread to show where the logical conclusion of “abortion is murder” leads. A guy was gunned down in a Church because someone followed this notion to a very logical conclusion. If other believe the same (abortion = murder) then how could they be anything other than pleased this doctor was shot?
Even most pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder don’t go much beyond buying a a mangled fetus T-Shirt. How does inventing twisted logic for them to follow advance the discussion?
I’d rather talk them down from their precipice than talk them over it - unless you think that your lesson in logic will cause them to have a blinding flash of cognitive dissonance and then agree that you were right all along.
If you followed the Roe V Wade case the court recognized the brain wave function displayed in the 3rd trimester and allowed states to ban it. it’s a defacto acknoledgment of the viability of a baby at that stage of development. It is a punishable offense in the states that ban it.
Whack-a-Mole is correct in the observation that people should act against abortion if they consider it murder. However, the idea that it involves murder is misplaced. People can work against abortion through support of adoption and public awareness programs. This is not mutually inclusive of murder, which is the opposite of the goal sought.
Pro-lifers know that their limits. The only thing they can do is try to change the law. They can’t get the woman convicted of murder. But they can protest the law, so they do.
Assuming malice on your opponents’ side is disingenuous at best. Why assume that people who have perhaps a stronger moral reason not to lie would lie (most pro-lifers are Christians who believe God will punish people for sin)?
What you are actually doing is an ad hominem attack. You are accusing the pro-lifers of misrepresenting their opinion on the subject so that you don’t have to deal with that subject. You are just as guilty of empty rhetoric as anyone else, if you are not going to argue logically.
Can’t answer for most, only for myself. Huerta88 provided some excellent clarification, and I already answered this: I’m for that strategy that results in the least overall harm. If letting someone go free of a crime creates the best chance for more restrictive abortion laws, I’ll accept it.
Your only answer, as far as I can tell, is that you don’t believe there should be any exception for rape. I was asking if that meant that you really weren’t concerned about the consequences of that position for the rape victim. It would appear that your answer is that you’re not concerned about the victim - you’ve said nothing else about it. I find that stance callous and downright cruel.
I will certainly not be subscribing to your newsletter, particularly if your only defense of your opinion is a one-liner: “That’s my opinion.”
Pro-lifers who believe that life begins at conception should also be working to make sure every fertilized egg comes to term, even if they have to force women to get pregnant with them. And every miscarriage is examined to make sure the woman didn’t cause it by taking an asprin, have a glass of wine, or “thinking bad thoughts.” Hell, every period of every women who is sexually active would have to be examined to make sure there isn’t a fertilized egg that she “caused” to be expelled.
Yeah, why aren’t they picketing at fertility clinics, where fertilized eggs are routinely flushed? Perhaps the female pro-lifers could offer their own wombs for implantation.
