That is more of an indictment of **you **than of Pro-Lifers.
What on earth are you talking about?
I think this wrongly obscures the issue.
Does it really matter to you if you perceive an horrendous, monstrous evil occurring but unbelievably (to you anyway) it is legal?
A moral imperative supersedes what the law says to you. If you truly felt that babies were being murdered, with all that word implies, how could you idly tolerate it?
If the only (your word) explanation you can think of is that pro-lifers are lying about their beliefs, than you are (1) very unimaginative; (2) very cynical; (3) very deeply rooted in the same unwillingness to take seriously those who hold beliefs different to your own that leads liberals to condemn their ideological opponents as “stupid” and (here) “liars.”
I don’t believe those Jews didn’t really want to be killed. Hardly any of them attacked the camp guards. It might have been a doomed attempt, but if they were serious about it, they totally could have ganged up and taken out at least a few guards. Never mind about hoping to be saved by the Allies in time – that clearly hadn’t worked so far, they were morally obligated to take action to at least try to stop the murders going on under their very eyes.
Oh, that’s an easy counter example, but more than sufficient to blow you out of the water. They don’t engage in preventive murder because (1) their creed tells them that two wrongs don’t make a right; (2) they live in a civil society where injustices aren’t, in most instances, understood to be redressed by blood atonement; (3) the personal consequences to them, vis a vis the benefit to the unborn, seem too high (rank hypocrisy! Quite right, in the limited understanding of hypocrisy that requires everyone to take their principles to an extreme, and a charge to which every single person on this board (on that limited definition) is guilty as charged, given that we have computers and are posting on this board as opposed to donating everything we have to the poor and swimming to Darfur to take on the fuzzywuzzies)).
Interestingly enough, I just saw an article on Slate dealing with this subject. It seems to agree with the general idea of what Whack-a-Mole is getting at. As for the moral imperative - I believe our country is more or less just, and I have tacitly agreed to the laws of the land and the process of changing them. I’m not going to start unloading heavy artillery when there is a mountain of reasoned debate on the issue. If there was cold silence while murderers ran free, that would be different, but that has very little to do with the current state of the abortion issue.
I believe that you deserve moral consideration and are a person and a human being, but I also believe that if I force you, even with death, to stop using my body parts I’m not committing murder.
So, no. I don’t think this follows.
So I owe child support. The only way I can earn the money I need to pay it is by hauling my ass into work and turning the crank. The kid is forcing me to use my body parts. I kill him, but that’s not murder.
Don’t think so.
Now you’re getting ridiculous. The little boy or girl did not attach him/herself to someone, but was attached by the person who is now seeking to have him or her removed in 99% of cases. Not only that, but the little boy or girl had NO SAY in becoming attached.
Either there is an error in your logic or your premises are wrong, or there is some other factor that you are not aware of or pro-lifers are a bunch of self-deceiving liars. (the options are not exclusive or exhaustive)
Which seems more likely to you?
A charitable attempt to understand your opponents will be hard work but I think it will be worthwhile. The alternative has resulted in deadlock and hatred.
He can give up children for adoption that are not biologically dependent upon him. Economic dependence can be transferred, biological dependence cannot.
Were you under the impression that giving up children for adoption (and what if no one wants them?) automatically extinguished obligations of support? Because I’d need a cite for that, given that he can lose custody of them entirely and still not “transfer economic dependence,” which (unlike biological dependence) is not necessarily limited temporally.
Malthus nailed it early on, with this post being a good summary I think.
Militant vegetarians use “Meat is murder” as well, but nobody expects them to go out and shoot cattle farmers. Just because some “pro-lifers” think abortion is abhorrent, it doesn’t mean that they think it is bad enough that they feel the need to kill the perpetrators.
There is a significant flaw in your reasoning. Think about it. I am arguing that if a pro-lifer believes abortion is murder, he must believe that he is living witness to a silent holocaust of babies. Therefore, he must also believe that any action he takes to stop this atrocity is morally justifiable, given the atrocities his actions would prevent. His goal is to reduce the number of abortions. If he believes killing an abortionist would facilitate this, it makes sense to do just that.
The goal of a Jew in a concentration camp would simply be survival. Given that (a) uprisings were doomed to failure because the guards were so heavily armed, (b) reprisals were so fierce, and (c) much of the time prisoners were led to believe they would survive if they followed instructions, it didn’t make much sense for them to revolt against the guards.
For the pro-lifer, violent action directly expedites the goal. For the prisoner, violent action is directly counterproductive.
That’s a side issue and bears no relevance to the subject at hand. It’s tangetially relevant to be sure, but I am uninterested in debating it here.
You’re pro-choice though, right? My argument only applies to pro-lifers who explicitly state (as many do) that abortion is murder.
If I killed an abortionist tomorrow (memo to LE: I have no plan to do so), is it at all clear to me that this would faciliitate the aim of reducing the net number of abortions? As opposed to increasing the profit margin of his cross-town rival? Maybe I should embark on a stealth program that would require me to escape and go kill the crosstown rival, too, then cleanse every town (as opposed to getting caught after a badly-thought-out one-off killing, as has seemed to be the pattern with the handful of guys who have gone ballistic in this regard)?
Gee, that seems a high-risk strategy, and it’s unclear whether and when I would have killed enough abortionists to reduce the net number of abortions performed, as opposed to simply shifting the demand towards a different supplier. And, it would come at significant cost to my personal well being, safety, and comfort, for what might end up being (in my own instance) a quixotic, doomed gesture. Gee, I’m right back to feeling not unlike a camp inmate as far as the risk-reward calculus.
Plus, anti-abortion people are human and thus allowed to have inconsistent or mixed feelings – I think. Yes, X is unjust; but yes, X doesn’t affect me, personally, so I’m Y% less dedicated than I might be to sacrificing everything I have to eradicate X. Yes, I think the fetus is a person, but yes, it’s not as visible a person as you, so I’m (they might honestly say) Z% less likely to throw myself in front of a truck as I might be for you. It works the converse too, you know. I’ve said herein that I generally believe in the sincerity of both sides’ positions as to whether the fetus is a person, so I acknowledge that many or most people who are okay with abortion are so because they really believe it’s not a person. That doesn’t stop, for instance, the Japanese (prolific abortion fans, due to their historical lack of oral contraceptives) from merrily aborting fetuses and then going to the aborted fetus shrine to offer a prayer for the “water child.” Memorials to Aborted Infants in Japan That’s hypocritical and inconsistent! Yep. So’s the human condition.
It’s visceral, almost organic, it comes from the hard-wiring installed with the Prime Directive: Reproduce! Same hard-wiring that compels us to think of loud, selfish, obnoxious little fuckers as cute. Be extinct without it, as so few of us would survive to be three. Trouble comes in because we won’t accept that we have irrational opinions, we feel the revulsion it doesn’t take long to put together a justification. They mistake a visceral reaction for a moral imperative, but its an instinctive revulsion.
Me. too, I have the visceral revulsion about abortion. But that’s what it is, and I know that. There’s a part of me that recoils at the very idea, but its not the part I use to make decisions.
Another visceral opinion I have is more substantiated, and that is perhaps the only valid application of sexism. Not to denigrate the role of guys, but there is a place we cannot go. It is the woman’s decision because it is she, she is both the vessel and the product, and the decision is hers, and if there’s any question, tie goes to the runner. As a man, my opinions are equally important and my decisions equally binding in every respect. Save one.
(Its a bit like the old joke about ham and eggs: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.)
Its her baby, her body, and her choice. I’m sure someone can cobble together a scenario for an exception, but as an abiding principle, it stands, far as I’m concerned.
Then don’t bring up “it’s exploiting my body/resources so I’m justified, by that alone, in killing it.” Because it’s the exact same principle, your glib attempt at distinction notwithstanding.
OK, I’ve got another hypothetical.
Suppose you see a guy about to cash his paycheck. You know that after he cashes the check he’s going to use it to pay for rent, food, and utilities. But you know of an operation that helps refugees in Darfur. If you had the money in that paycheck, you could use it to rescue 10 people in Darfur. So aren’t you obligated to steal that guy’s paycheck? If you don’t steal his paycheck and send the money to Darfur it means you value money more than human life. If that guy keeps his paycheck it means ten people in Darfur die. Aren’t you a big old hypocrite who doesn’t really care about human life?
What do you do?
What DO you do?
I completely agree. I’ve not got any beef with pro-lifers for being inconsistent per se. I do, however, think that if you spend your days wandering about telling everybody who’ll listen that abortion is murder (as some pro-lifers do), sooner or later you’re going to convince someone of exactly that. This someone may very well end up doing something drastic. Therefore, if you’re a pro-lifer who feels your beliefs are inconsistent on this point, it behooves you to use more conservative language.
In a sense, yes. You can make a case that every penny not spent on your immediate survival is a penny spent prolonging the misery of someone else. Through inaction, we are all guilty of falling short of our deepest moral convictions. However, there is a vast difference, morally speaking, between allowing someone to die through inaction and actively going out of your way to hurt someone. Pro-lifers believe fetuses have an inalienable right to life and it is therefore inconsistent for pro-lifers who genuinely believe abortion is murder to tolerate the presence of abortionists in their midst, given their views on the practise. At the same time, it’s not inconsistent to tolerate the practise of keeping the bulk of one’s own wages for oneself because nobody has the right to the fruits of another’s labour.