Well, i’m pro-choice, but i’m also against the death penalty. Am I morally obliged to kill executioners or prison guards in countries that do have it? No. Because that would be a stupid way to go about altering things. If I kill someone behind the scenes at places that have the death penalty i’ll kill one person, although even that is optimistic. What changes? They’ll be replaced by someone else. The interest in being part of that rigamarole will probably go down, but there’s millions of people around, so I doubt it would hurt the system too much. It won’t aid my cause, and more, it will make people who do hold my cause look bad - look at the times that attacks on abortion providers are brought up in threads on here, for instance, and I suspect you’ll see that they are not brought up as good examples. Whereas I can do considerably more to help my cause as a still alive person; as can a pro-lifer.
Moreover, there’s the point that two wrongs do not make a right. Someone doesn’t like killing, another person kills, ergo we must kill that person. While there are people whose particular moral code allows for killing in some situations that may allow for killing abortionists to be (at least morally) a correct act, that certainly doesn’t mean all of them, and that does appear to be your claim - that all pro-lifers should be killers. If anything, to stick to one’s convictions despite the downside is a far greater act of courage than simply going out and murdering is.
This is an asinine analogy. For one thing it wouldn’t even be physically possible to be in a position to do it. For another thing, it wouldn’t have any effect. It wouldn’t stop anything. The next President would just give the same order.
It’s also kind of evasive, isn’t it? At best, it’s a tu quoque, not actually an answer to the question.
Thats a bad comparison because prison guards can be replaced immediately but it takes lots of training to be an abortionist and the treaining is expensive. Moreover, taking America as an example, there aren’t that many executions nowadays. To make a dent in the system youd have to kill more garuds than there are death row inmates which wouldn’t make sense. Moreover killing the guards wouldnt stop the executions and you cant kill the executioners because noboduy knows who they are.
With abortion on the other hand, its easy to find out who the abortionists are and even if you act alone and only kill one abortionist and only close one clinic for a single day, youll still probably stop 3 or 4 abortions. Ifd you believe abortion is murder then thats a good deal. If a few hundred pro-lifers started doing the same thing then people would quickly stop being abortionists.
To be more clear, my claim is thatr thpose pro-lifers who think an embryo should have exactly the same right toi life as anybody else don’t have any excuse for not killing abortionists and they know it. The fact that they don’t do it shows they dont really believe what they say they believe. This removes a fair bit of the moral authoriuty from the pro-life case.
You wouldn’t “stop” them. You’d delay them. And if a hundred pro-lifers started doing the same thing, I rather imagine the law would be changed to address this sudden rise in conspiracy to murder, as well as increasing the numbers of guards and defences. And with all these murderers running around, the pro-life movement as a whole would rather suddenly lose a lot of appeal and gain rather large accusations of hypocrisy. No, it would be a small hurt but one shrugged off, and would help abortionists (and abortion seekers) as a whole. It’s not just a plan people aren’t choosing very much, it’s also a bad plan.
They do have an excuse. They’re against killing. They’re pro-life. It’s kind of in the name. They also have the excuses that it would not work, that they could do more or different things that would help more, that they do not want to go to jail and be unable to help, that they are unsuitable for the whole running-and-gunning business, and that it is a terrible plan. The fact that they don’t shows only that they don’t, and that you have a rather impressive lack of imagination. There’s plenty of reasons why not.
I haven’t but skimmed the thread, because the argument always goes the same way. But the answer to the OP’s question is that pro-lifers don’t kill abortion doctors (or the women who get abortions) because being “pro life” isn’t about life, it’s about controlling those dirty, dirty sluts. If pro-lifers really gave a fuck about the number of abortions, they would encourage greater access to contraception instead of trying to restrict it and they would chuck abstinence-only education programs (proven not to decrease teen sex, but proven to increase teen STD’s and pregnancies) instead of supporting them. Pro-life is not a consistent philosophical or political position, It’s cover for being squicked out by the idea of chicks doin’ it on their own terms.
“Murder” is a social construct. Not all killings are considered murder in our society. For example, killing in self-defense is not called murder. Using the death penalty isn’t murder. Killing someone in war conditions can get you called a hero, not a murderer.
In the same vein, ending a pregnancy is not a “murder.” It’s simply exercising a right that we, as a society, have already determined you are entitled to. It’s not suicide, manslaughter, or a holocaust…it’s a decision not to allow cells to grow to their full potential.
Exactly. These are people who pretty consistently push for anything that will hurt women. They show little concern about actually reducing abortion, much less the life and welfare of the children they want to force on people.
They want to force them to bear children against their will, that can be lethal. They oppose that anti-cancer vaccine because it might encourage sex; that can kill. Women have died because of our Mexico City policy; hospitals funded by America have feared to give pregnant women any sort of medical care, for fear that she’ll miscarry and we’ll cut them off accusing them of abortions.
Where’s your cite for their alleged concern over children ?
Or, say, female genital mutilation. How about a cite of a pro-lifer saying that cutting off women’s clitorises is a good idea.
Something specific, that everyone (not just the crackpots) agree hurts women. Not this garbage about anyone who doesn’t support cradle-to-grave federal subsidies for anyone who gets pregnant out of wedlock
I often get a distinct impression that, for at least some in the pro-life movement, it’s about punishing and shaming women for having sex out of wedlock. I’ve heard protesters calling women “sluts” and “whores” on their way into abortion clinics.
Actually, even as a very hard-core pro-choice, opinionated woman, I believe my mother has one of the best arguments for not terminating a pregnancy. She was adopted and has mentioned that if abortion was as widely available when she was born as it is now, she wouldn’t be here. To that, I have to say, “Well, okay you have a point.” Her side on this is not about punishing women and she really DOES believe that the fetus has a right to be.
I don’t agree with her, but it’s certainly a reasonable point of view.
That’s a specious argument. So she wouldn’t be here. So what? A person who never exists can’t be a victim. If she hadn’t been born, there wouldn’t be a “her” to not be here.
That’s not a personal knock on her, it’s true of anybody.
There’s also a converse rebuttal to that. If Hitler’s mother had gotten an abortion, then Hitler would have never been here.
Abortion is wrong. So is an unwanted pregnancy. I know of no woman who is not tortured when having to decide whether to:
a) get an abortion
b) have baby put up for adoption
c) keep a baby that is unwanted.
All of the above scenarios is usually a tragedy. The best solution? Improved access to birth control.
I am very much pro choice. I think it should be the womans choice until the fetus is viable. I am very much against 3rd trimester abortions, and in fact would like that set back to around 22 weeks at the max.
You’all don’t bring in religion. Most of the pro-life idiots are there for religious reasons.
Why don’t prolife people kill abortion providers? What a moronic question. Simply an attempt to start discussions. Most people do not commit crimes to prevent things that they think are wrong, particularily if they believe that the prevention is also a crime, and they will likely be punished harshly for it.
One of the biggest factors on crime statistics is poverty. The odds of ending up a criminal, incarcerated etc is being born into poverty. The amazing stat about Roe vs Wade is the drop in crime 20 years after it was enacted.
Also, if you think global warming is a crime, and thats its anthroprogenic, the best thing you can do is reduce the number of people in the world. I have being saying this for 30 years - there are toooooo many people. Having unwanted ones, particularily in poverty situations, is every bit as immoral as an abortion.
I absolutely agree with you. I just wanted to point out an anti-choice argument that wasn’t what I normally hear. And her opinion isn’t mean-spirited, even though I disagree. She hasn’t thought it through (I’ve thought in the past of mentioning your Hitler version of the story and decided against it) and it’s not logical. But she’s simply looked me in the face and told me that her life has value and it could have been discarded.