First, I think its been pretty well shown already that that there is incredibly activism on it. You just have your blinders on.
Second, you were on a real role a while ago about Bush being guilty of murder. How come you haven’t assassinated him and his administration? Surely that follows from the logic you are using here?
After all, one can’t truly believe it’s murder unless you are willing to murder the murdering murderer dead.
How does it not? “Pro-lifers” generally believe that abortion is the killing of a person and ought to be unlawful; obviously, most do not want it prosecuted in the same manner as “murder” is. As pointed out above, thee is nothing unusual about this position, “infanticide” is already treated as different from murder.
They do what anyone else does who wants to change the law - they agitate, they protest, they engage in civil disobedience.
I don’t agree with their position, but demanding that they do something more extreme to prove they really mean it is just a silly ad hom. argument, equally applicable to any number of other causes … after all, some enviromentalists believe that certain energy practices are creating global warming and are likely to ruin the whole earth and everything on it. Why aren’t they shooting people in the streets over this? If they really believed it, it is the single most important issue there is …
Now personally I am more on the side of the environmentalists that the “pro-lifers”, the latter of whom I don’t agree with at all - but please note that the tactics of the two groups are not dissimilar: grass-roots organizing, lobbying, civil disobedience, and a small number of fanatics who resort to acts of violence (more so in the case of the “pro-lifers” - does that mean that they are more committed, more truthful about their beliefs?).
Because the particular pro-lifers the OP is talking about are the very specific ones who say that abortion IS MURDER.
He’s asking, “If you think it’s murder, why don’t you want it treated like murder? If you don’t want it treated like murder, maybe you don’t really think it’s murder?”
Your reply is, “They don’t want it prosecuted like murder. Infanticide is different from murder.”
We already know this! That’s what the question is!
I agree there is a lot of activism on this issue out there. I am just noting that for something compared to a holocaust the activism seems a bit meager. If I thought some group was systematically murdering people to the tune of near 50 million people and counting I’d be falling over myself trying to stop it.
Was Bush stabbing people in the head as a matter of course? Is this some kind of six degrees of separation thing such that I should not only go after Bush but congresscritters who voted to enable his policies, judges that supported it and voters who elected him?
So the argument is, if you believe that something is murder, then you are morally obligated to try to kill the person who committed the murder.
So, pro-choicers have no option but to support the death penalty. Or rather, to commit acts of vigilanteeism against them.
Hmm.
Regards,
Shodan
We’ve already disposed of this but thanks for playing.
We know that capital punishment is killing, but I’ve yet to hear of a “pro-life” person killing an executioner.
The OP goes further than this. It says:
The OP conjures up a set of absurd obligations that he believes should follow from the belief that abortion is murder. He then wants to claim that, since the majority of pro-lifers don’t follow his twisted logic, that they must not believe what they say they believe. It’s a very weak reductio argument.
In addition to being invalid, it does more harm than good.
Are you arguing that people who think killing is wrong should kill people who kill people?
People … people who kill people …
Sorry.
If the law and the courts say they should, yes. If George Tiller had been convicted of killing and gone through the appeals process and been legally killed, I would not be outraged.
Anti-abortionists would rather kill doctors, picket clinics and harass women seeking health care than repeal abortion laws.
Are you seriously claiming that pro life people aren’t trying to change abortion law?
No, that was worded wrong. In My Opinion, anti-abortionists should work within the system at changing the laws, and stop killing doctors, picketing clinics, and harassing women. It would improve their image.
And I do wish they would start calling themselves “anti-abortion” (which they are) and stop calling pro-choice people as “pro-abortion” (which they are not).
It is a simple matter of terminology.
The “pro-lifers” believe that abortion is morally wrong, because they believe that a fetus is a “person” and the killing of a person = wrong. Hence, for rhetorical puposes, ‘abortion = murder’.
However, they are not using that term in a legal sense (as in ‘murder is to be distinguished from other forms of culpable homicide in the following ways …’).
You are taking a word used in the colloquial sense, and insisting that those who use it must mean it in the legal sense - and are asking why they are not insisting on prosecuting or otherwise treating those whom they believe to have offended as “murderers”.
The answer is pretty clear: most “pro-lifers”, if asked what they really wanted, would say that they want a law that outlaws abortion (and presumably has some sort of penalty for performing one) but they do not seek to prosecute those who offend as “murderers” in the legal sense, such as with a mandatory life sentence etc.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
The vast majority of Pro Life activism is done within the system at changing the laws. You are simply cherry picking certain negative events, and ignoring the rest. Try using Google some time, you find a huge amount, you might even say a plethora, of cites regarding laws, ammendments, propositions, court cases, etc.
I never thought I’d end up arguing on the side of “pro-lifers”. 
Yes indeed. They should conform to your strawman standard, rather than their own. :rolleyes:
‘Anti-abortion’ doesn’t fully encompass the views of that ideology any more than ‘pro-abortion’ does the other side.
Yes, he goes further, but the initial premise is being ignored. The initial premise is “Given that they say it’s murder…” People seem to be ignoring that given.
Now, I’m not sure that it’s an important discussion. Obviously, we’re all subject to certain emotional reactions that affect our judgment so that while our logic says that X is equivalent to Y, we treat it or react to it as equivalent to Z instead. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
More harm than good?
Try this:
I ask you:
If you believed the rhetoric above, really believed it was true that Dr. Tiller was one of the most “evil men on the planet” and he was decapitating little boys and girls that he “carved out of their mother’s wombs” what would you think an appropriate response would be? Would a sit-in be sufficient in your view to convey the level of opposition you feel to such a thing?
Of course Mr. Terry carefully advocates for peaceful opposition in his screed, he is no dummy to jeopardize his position by inciting violence yet implicitly that is exactly what he is doing. It is easy to envision violent opposition as a natural response to the above if one really believed that was the case. I submit that if Mr. Terry truly believed his own rhetoric we’d see a good deal more than a press release from him.
The point of the thread is to highlight the actual damage caused by the rhetoric. There are always some wingnuts out there who will latch on to these words and murdering a doctor becomes a perfectly reasonable action to them. They are not a murderer, they are a hero in their own head. If you believe this stuff than how can anything less than exceptionally vigorous opposition be in order?
Explain this please. They are “anti-abortion.” That is their whole agenda–to stop abortions. Most of them want to do it legally, but others want to harass women, picket clinics and kill doctors.