Revolting against the established order can be accomplished without violence. One need not become a militarist to become a revolutionary. If you believe the law of the land sanctions murder, then in good conscience you must remove your sanction from that government. This act will have consequences. That fact does not alter the morality of either your stand, or the actions of the Government. For the sake of what is right, you must decide what you will offer to the cause.
I oppose the government on many issues. I work for the government as well. When I was a soldier, I learned the limits of madness to which my government was willing go. I refused to participate. There were consequences. My revolt was not successful in disarming the nuclear forces of my nation. It was successful in disarming my own nuclear threat. ( A small victory, little noted in military circles.)
Perhaps David B has a point, with respect to some pro-life advocates, but certainly some hold their belief with full conscience, and do engage in revolutionary acts. The fact that they are more successful at the polls than in the streets is not a failure, from the point of view of revolutionaries. The first duty of the revolutionary is to win.
I hold a much different view of abortion and abortion rights than most do. I oppose abortion, but only on an individual person at a time basis. To wage that revolution I must be willing to assume responsibility for both of the persons I am trying to influence. Those responsibilities are vast, in both cases. The government has expressed no such willingness to assume responsibility, to my knowledge. They are encouraged by many in the pro-life camp to assert authority without that responsibility. I believe that to be tyranny, and oppose it vehemently.
I do support the revolution in our society that would make abortion unnecessary. That would be a much less violent revolution, but a far more expensive one. I have my doubts that our nation desires it enough to pay the price.
I’ve been wondering a similar thing for quite a while. Given that a substantial portion of the US population considers the fetus to be a human being, why is killing it treated differently from killing any other human being? Even when abortion was illegal, the punishments were rarely as severe as it would be for murder. In fact, the existence of a separate abortion statute, instead of simply charging abortionists with murder, implies that the fetus is not indeed considered a human being. There are a lot of people that say “Well, I think that a fetus is a huamn being, but I don’t think that I have the right to dictate morality to other people”. But come on. Just how many people, when contemplating whether outright murder should be illegal, would say “I don’t think that I have the right to dictate morality to other people”? It seems to me that there are two major categories of consistent thinking on this issue: the belief that the unborn have fewer rights than born, and the belief that abortion should carry exactly the same weight as murder. I don’t see how anyone could hold any other position, except as a compromise position. And how can you compromise on murder?
Actually I hadn’t considered that…
But sperm would only be half the potential… Bah, the logic there is a bit twisted and self-serving, but it is only an opinion after all, I don’t force it on anybody or expect anybody to conform to my views.
But you do have a point.
Didn’t the Catholics view birth control as murder?
While I don’t entirely agree with SexyWriter’s analysis, it’s worth pointing out that IIRC in his first Presidential Bid, Alan Keyes explicitly stated that all problems facing the US- teen pregnancy, unemployment, crime, racism, etc.- ultimately derived from the legality of abortion. (Obviously this is a bit of an extreme position, since not all pro-lifers feel this way.)
I really wish I had read The True Believer earlier, because America is making so much more sense now… Hoeffer makes mention of the fact that a mass movement needs a unitary devil, and so in the case of Nazism, Jews were to blame for everything. Clearly America and the USSR were much, much bigger threats to Germany than the local Jewry, but presto, Hitler said that Jews were secretly controlling the US, USSR, England, France, etc. Similarly fundies don’t know what to do about the sagging economy, school shootings, etc., so it’s all the fault of the anti-Christian atheist conspiracy.
Some of the supporters of gathering the names and addresses of abortion providers and putting up the “Wanted” posters were quoted as saying that the database of names and addresses would be needed so “…in the future, America comes to its senses, there will be trials…”
So many of those groups don’t just want the activity to stop, they look forward to dealing out punishment.
Any form of contraception apart from natural planning is unacceptable. And, if you believe the unborn baby is a person, a lot of forms of birth control are murder as they prevent implantation of a viable fertilized egg.
Just stopping the Holocaust wasn’t enough either; some of the perpetrators were put on trial and punished. But that’s a good question: abortion now and persecution of Jews at that time are/were not illegal. How can perpetrators be tried later, with new rules applied retroactively?