He noted that even if they never read what they wrote they still created the climate of hate with those words that fosters these kinds of people.
Also note it is: “unhinged and/or fully committed”
A minor but important distinction I think as that allows for non-unhinged but just really committed people to act badly.
Generally I agree.
Yet is there nothing to you that would be so heinous that you’d feel compelled to take action, even against the law?
In this premised bizzaro world the law is somehow ok with a mass murderer killing little kids. This, to me, rises to the level of me deciding I have to do something and stop it.
YMMV of course.
This is the best post in the thread and the fact that nobody has addressed it is revealing.
Yes, of course you shoot him.
There addressed, moving on.
It doesn’t *allow *anything. People are responsible for their actions. Period.
The fact that you need to conjure up a bizzaro scenario to understand your opponents suggests that you have not tried hard enough to understand their POV.
After which you find out the baby was hydrocephalic and brain dead and an imminent threat to the mother’s life which is why the doctor was performing the procedure.
I am by no means a 100% law abiding citizen - certainly there are situations where I feel the law is in error and behave accordingly. However in those situations, my risk is low both in being caught and the subsequent ramifications. Would I be willing to launch an attack on someone and risk life in prison? I think I would rather work to change the law than take on those kinds of risks.
Also, don’t forget that in your bizarro world where the law is somehow ok with a mass murderer killing little kids, in order for the analogy to hold, the reason they are OK with it is because society felt that the alternative to killing the little kids was even less agreeable.
Well…I do not personally think that abortion = murder nor does the law so the people living in bizzaro world are the pro-lifers who somehow think that thousands little kid killers and women’s womb carver-uppers are tolerated in our society. Perhaps pro-lifers have not tried hard enough to understand the pro-choice POV.
Yes of course. The question wasn’t quite as astute as Weston thought it was.
I agree. And…?
I addressed it right here:
The fact that you ignored my response is also revealing.
Either abortion is legal because fetuses don’t count as persons or fetuses don’t count as persons because that’s what the law says.
If you believe the former, you must also believe laws prohibiting abortion are immoral. If you believe the latter, you must believe that the ethical status of abortion hinges on the legal status of the fetus.
Your answer implies you believe the latter. This in turn implies that you believe that, were abortion illegal, pro-lifers would be morally obligated to kill abortionists. Is this the case?
Again, is there nothing (just as a thought experiment) that you’d find so heinous, so appalling that you’d feel compelled to do something about it even if it meant you’d be jailed for life?
Assume you really, really felt the guy down the street was literally mass murdering little kids. Really consider that for a moment. Personally I have a hard time conjuring up a more despicable horror. So, you perceive this massive evil. From there it is all too logical to go vigilante to stop it if no other means to do so exists.
Hence the point of the OP. If pro-lifers truly felt the above was happening, that little kids were being murdered, mass murdered no less, then direct action becomes a moral imperative. That relatively few go to those lengths (thankfully) I think it can be argued that most pro-lifers do not really equate abortion to murder as they propose it.
I believe fetuses are human beings who are parasitical to another human being, and that no human being has a right to life if that life requires the support of another human being. IE, the Mother’s right not to be a slave supersedes the right of the fetus to live.
So no, my views don’t fit into your binary scenario. I’m sorry if I mislead you, I was blowing off what I saw as a stupid question, not really trying to give it legitimacy. I was just saying that if it is clear that a Doctor is murdering a baby (As Whack-A-Mole pointed out, clarity is absent in DtC’s example.) and I had a gun, yes I’d shoot the baby murderer.
No it doesn’t. No matter how many straw men you guys prop up, pro-lifers are not morally obligated to kill abortionists.
That’s funny. The child support laws arrive at a different result. I’m pretty sure the novel approach of killing his kids would not work for a beleaguered non-custodial dad with onerous support payment obligations that make him a “slave.”
On the other topic. Thousands of murders take place each year. A couple dozen guys get executed. A bunch of murderers don’t. Some go totally free. How does anyone here escape charges of hypocrisy when O.J. Simpson killed a woman, probably would again eventually if not locked up, but none of us is out there busting a cap in him or the other unpunished, likely-to-reoffend, murderers?
That is certainly true too - but doesn’t detract from your obligation to understand them.
Fair enough, and thanks for explaining.
To me, this seems like such a no-brainer. Beliefs don’t exist in isolation. Every belief you hold entails complementary beliefs. For example, if you believe that the Bugatti Veyron is the most awesome car ever made, you must believe that it’s more awesome than the BMW M3. You don’t have a choice. You have to believe this.
Similarly, if you believe that a fetus deserves every bit as much moral consideration as a newborn baby or an adult like you or I, you must believe that abortion is murder. Again, you don’t have a choice.
If you believe that abortion is murder, you must believe that there is occurring, right under your nose, a state sponsored holocaust of babies, far worse than the Jewish holocaust because (a) there are many, many, many more victims, and (b) the victims are all babies. Again, you have to believe this.
Now consider this hypothetical: Imagine you were a French or Polish resistance fighter during WWII. You and your friends accidentally happen across a Nazi death camp. You can see people being systematically executed right in front of you. Surely you would want to free the innocent prisoners, right? And surely you wouldn’t really care if you had to kill some of the guards attending to this industrialised massacre, right? I know I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If they didn’t want to get shot they shouldn’t have become concentration camp guards, right? And besides, by killing a handful of merciless guards you would be saving potentially thousands of innocent Jews.
Final question: If you are a pro-lifer who genuinely believes fetuses are people and that abortion is murder, what is wrong with applying this logic to the question of whether to kill abortionists?
As far I can see, the answer is ‘nothing at all’. If this is the case, it invites a further question “Why aren’t more abortionists killed by pro-lifers?” The only answer to that question I can think of is “Because pro-lifers don’t actually believe what they say they believe”.
If that’s the case they should, as Whack-A-Mole says, stop saying things they don’t believe. It only makes things worse.
Of course I can dream up scenarios where I would risk being jailed for life, but my point is that your scenario ignores many crucial elements that are in between “abortion is murder” and “time to come in with both barrels blazing” and I am guessing (since it isn’t my stance) that those who have that view are taking those factors into the equation.
In order for your hypothetical kid-murdering scenario to have any weight at all beyond a straw man, it has to account for the fact that society has deemed it legally acceptable for that kid-murderer to do his murdering. That the effects of his kid-murdering have a benefit to society that outweighs the social injustice of the act. That there have been countless debates on the merits of kid-murdering, and as a result a grudging majority has decided “we don’t like it but we will allow it.” Under all of those parameters, even IF I felt absolutely that the law was wrong, I likely would not firebomb his house.