So of like how the majority of abolitionists remained peaceful in their methods until the American Civil War actually broke out? Were they not serious?
Well demographics. Correct me if I’m wrong but the prochoice side tends to be the side for labor rights, and social programs, although it also generally includes libertarians who as a rule aren’t so supportive of taxation to support these programs. So there are counter examples.
However the antiabortion side tends to be into religious coercion, scrapping social programs, and recently wars based in delusional ravings or malicious lies about “a clear and present danger”.
The slaver evil trash became violent, not generally, the abolitionists. With a few exceptions.
And how about the abolitionists that believes slavery was wrong. They demonstrated, they appealed to their legislature, they didn’t go around killing slaveowners.
I am somewhat pro-life because I think Rawls makes a whole lot of sense.
I’m not up-to-date in the laws or acceptable practices in the Middle Ages up to the 1800’s, but this practice was definitely in effect for a considerable amount of time in Western societies and I bet it was in Eastern societies too.
But you’re reaching for straws with this argument. The claim that a situation A is wrong cannot be refuted by claiming that the situation A is not worse, like A++, therefore A is not wrong.
I forget the name of this particular logic fallacy.
Why do you think that it is dead wrong to view a fetus (lets say in the 26th week) as a full fledged human being?
That’s my point. Similarly most pro-lifers remain calm while and use peaceful methods as the abortionists butcher hundreds of thousands of fetuses.
Cites, please.
And prochoicers remained calm peaceful during ended the enslavement of women.
However for comparative calm how many"prolife" places have been bombed, threatened, etc.?
On the upside, those fetuses can’t think and don’t have souls. So, why should society care again?
The Republican Party, do I really need to go farther? What kind of point did you think you were making?
That does not count the fact that roughly a million fetuses are murdered every year under pro-abortion laws while over the decades there have been no more than a handful of deaths due to anti-abortion terrorism. Those are the people comparable to John Brown and similar others.
Close, but the reality is a bit more sinister than demanding accountability.
The conservative detractors you mention don’t really care if BP or Exxon is accountable for the immense damage they caused. They don’t care if their political sweetheart signed backroom deals with weapons manufacturers that knowingly provided defective equipment to US troops in Iraq.
It’s not about accountability. It’s about the basic tenet and common glue of conservatism: make others suffer so we can claim ourselves as superior. All political and social positions conservative politics has supported the past 70 years have adhered to this basic common belief. Their reaction to the pro-choice issue is one of those positions.
Actually they aren’t murdered. Why don’t you educate yourself about what that word means before you use it?
This assumes same point of view on all. You can’t describe someone as violent, or as butchering, if they have no idea what they’re doing. You can’t ascribe violent motives to someone by assigning your own moral standards to their mental state.
Your argument is also hypocritical; you compare *most *pro-lifers not to most pro-choicers, but those limited amount of pro-choice people who perform abortions. You’re literally matching up a majority and a minority; it would make equal sense for me to claim the majority of calm, peaceful-means using pro-choicers against clinic-bombing pro-lifers; an equivalently biased point.
That I would like cites for what you’re claiming. I’m from the UK - i’m afraid i’m not as familiar with demographics research across the pond. So, yes, i’m afraid you need to go further.
Just because it is legally sanctioned does not make it a legally justified killing.
Are you talking about fetuses or abortionists when you say “they have no idea what they’re doing”?
Alright then. I concede your point. However the majority of pro-lifers do not approve of pro-life terrorism while the most pro-choicers approve of abortions.
Seems to me that the most vocal anti-abortionists generally are men or women past child bearing age. Eg, those that can not concieve. Anyone have cites on this?
It’s also my personal experience that most anti-abortionists could care less what happens to the child after it’s born. So you get anti abortionists who also are anti childcare programs or anti public schooling or anti vaccination. In other words, plenty of “small government” types that also believe in a totalitarian state when it comes to a woman’s reproductive rights and don’t want to help fund raising those kids. You know, I just moved here after 20+ years in China, and pot kettle black.
Well, it would be accurate to say for both. But in this case I was talking about abortionists.
Again, there’s still the problem of belief. Most pro-lifers, I would wager, would consider the bombing of a clinic to be murder. Most pro-choicers, however, would not consider abortion to be murder. You may claim, objectively speaking, that pro-choicers support murder in that way (though of course, I would disagree with you); but you couldn’t claim that pro-choicers support murder* knowingly*. If you pressed a button that you were led to believe would give you some tasty cake, but actually killed someone in the other room, it would be wrong of me to consider you to have harboured violent thoughts, the desire to murder. In fact i’d argue that you would not be a murderer, morally speaking, at all, despite the fact that the death of the person may be directly attributed to your actions.
I don’t think all pro-lifers (and really, how did they get to claim that bit of linguistic real estate) are in it because deep down they hate women and their slutty sexual choices. But I think that, at the heart of it, a lot of them are. Maybe they don’t even realize it, because so many people are really not very introspective, but in the long view it seems so obvious.
ETA - to me the smoking gun is that those tend to be the same people who are against meaningful, contraceptive-oriented sex ed and against making contraception freely available for the maximum number of people.