It’s called a hypothetical. The point is to conjure a situation that would be immediately relevant to you.
Well one way you’d have to alter his analogy would be for it to actually be thousands of guys doing this. Not just one. If it was just one I think you’d have someone who’d handily take care of it.
No you are right. It’s not. And neither is a simple killing. In fact, the only sufficient way is to sacrifice yourself stopping it from happening. That’s right, suicide bombing. Nothing short of dying for the cause AND killing the murderer. A full out war of attrition. Anything less means you aren’t really Pro Life. :rolleyes:
Geography is irrelevant to your hypothetical question. You are only applying that limitation in order to squirm out of having your same assertion applied back to you.
Nice dodge and non-answer.
The point of the OP is this kind of rhetoric, if believed, demands some response greater than an occasional march. That or someone needs to convince me that murder is sufficiently opposed by marching once in awhile.
Your and others studious avoidance of answering the question I think is reason to believe the premise of the OP is correct. Pro-lifers (generally) simply cannot truly hold the notion that abortion is murder. Murder akin to walking down the street and slamming a poleaxe through people’s heads and then dismembering them.
You have a misguided sense of direction. Are you equating occassionally marching in front of a house to massively coordinated acts of civil disobedience on par with the entirety of the Civil Right Movement?
That’s not “clear” in any sense of the word. You cannot and will not draw any direct link between the two, because none exists. Anything you come up with will be speculation and wild guessery.
WWJD?
What would Jesus do, did He come to condemn sinners or to reach out to them? Murders are just another form of sin, even if you don’t accept abortion as murder is it a violation of the first (and only for a time) instruction God gave man - Be fruitful and multiply as such is sin.
If you are guilty of breaking one rule you are guilty of breaking them all.
Let the pro-lifer who is without sin cast the first stone.
It isn’t clear?
If someone says “We ought to stop abortions by changing the law” that’s fine with me. I don’t agree with it, but it is okay to make that statement as a matter of opinion.
If someone says “We ought to stop abortions by killing every murderous baby killing abortionist, firebombing every abortion mill, and kidnapping every women who wants an abortion and forcing her to carry the preborn child to term on the planet” that is NOT fine by me.
Well, OK. Speculation and wild-assed guessery based on personal experience and in-depth knowledge of the people in question. Still…
No. It’s been studiously explained to you over and over that belief in vigilante justice is completely separate from belief in any particular cause.
We can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make him drink. And we don’t know where his oats are, I guess.
No, it isn’t. Not multiplying now doesn’t mean you’ll never do so. And “fruitfulness” isn’t necessarily harmed either - in fact I would imagine that in some cases *not *having an abortion could actually harm reproductive ability.
Edit: And as far as knowing what Jesus would do, it would appear he violated that particular instruction, too.
Good thing no one’s saying the latter! Why were we talking about it, then?
As to the former, I repeat – “the law” has been handed down unto us by nine unelected Solons. How do you “change” that? The denial of democratic rights has, understandably, radicalized some of those who hold the anti-abortion opinion.
Hehe, the ad on your reformed anti-abortion activist article is for Spaceship Pew Pew.
No, it’s not, as evidenced by your very own post. He admits that those taking action are those who are already unhinged and fully committed, and that the actions would be taken even if the murderers had never heard the rhetoric.
Just out of curiosity Whack-a-Mole, what would YOU do in this hypothetical? You live in an area where there is a maniac killing babies, only everything he is doing is legal and the majority of rational people you talk to about it kind of shrug their shoulders and say “yeah what he is doing isn’t great, but it is better than the alternative.” What exactly would you do?
There is plenty of evidence that heated rhetoric can provoke violence and I think the spouters of heated rhetoric bear a big chunk of responsibility for the murder of Dr Tiller.
My point (if I have one) is that fighting heated rhetoric with heated rhetoric is rarely productive.
Instead of trying to make the other side angry by mischaracterizing their arguments what if those of us who are not on the extremes rallied around a goal that most people would probably support.
How about
“To find a solution that reduces the number of abortions without imposing government control over women’s bodies”
It’s less catchy than “abortion is murder” or “keep your government out of my womb” but it might catch on.
As soon as there is a case of a serial killer abducting pregnant women and killing their fetuses against their will, I’ll let you know. I would think it is an outrage, but I also think it’s an outrage for a woman to have to carry a fetus against her will.
Assuming I knew a mass murdering child killer was decapitating little kids in my neighborhood and the police wouldn’t stop him?
I’d fire bomb the person’s house.
FTR I do not think abortion doctors are murderers, far from it.
The police won’t stop him because everything he is doing is LEGAL. Hard for me to say what I would do exactly, but I generally side with the law, so I would probably be forming protest groups, yelling at people with megaphones, etc to do everything in my power to change the law, which seems to me basically what the pro-life crowd does. Vigilante justice doesn’t really do well for society.