I'm saying that the logical conclusion from the premises that abortion is murder and abortion is the new Holocaust is that killing abortion doctors is justified.
I don't believe that abortion is murder. But I do believe that if abortion were murder, then violent resistance to it would be justified.
Do you believe that violence is justified or that murder is justified, or both?
Because, if I were to believe that abortion is murder, and that there were no nonviolent solutions to the abortion problem that wouldn't be immediate (which I don't), I would want the abortion doctors locked up not killed, because that's what I want to happen to my murders. I think that going straight to murder, without giving the chance of abortion doctors a chance to atone (under the hypothetical premise that abortion is murder), and wouldn't say that the logical conclusion is straight murder. Why would you think that murder is necessary?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
Do you believe that violence is justified or that murder is justified, or both?
Because, if I were to believe that abortion is murder, and that there were no nonviolent solutions to the abortion problem that wouldn't be immediate (which I don't), I would want the abortion doctors locked up not killed, because that's what I want to happen to my murders. I think that going straight to murder, without giving the chance of abortion doctors a chance to atone (under the hypothetical premise that abortion is murder), and wouldn't say that the logical conclusion is straight murder. Why would you think that murder is necessary?
Certainly locking up murderers is preferable. But when the apparatus of the state supports the murderers, how are you going to lock them up? If you tried, the swat teams would swiftly destroy your make-shift jail, you'd be in a real jail (or dead), and the murderers would be back to murdering. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
Obviously, there are many good alternatives to killing people to stop an atrocity. But there have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. People have tried all manner of non-violent resistance. They've tried legislation, they've tried protest, they've tried regulation, they've even tried prayer. How many more million would you let be murdered before you were willing to fight back?
Probably? What group of people are we talking about without making assumptions?
Newman seems to have intimated as much to Scott Roeder before he killed Tiller, is why I say "probably".
What I'm trying to get at, is who is actually taking the position you want to establish? It's fairly pointless to discuss if it's a position that few, short of the mentally disturbed, would advocate.
No, it is definitely not morally acceptable to watch tens of millions be slaughtered and say, "well, at least in several generations, we might be able to vote to stop it!"
Ah but you are looking at the short term, you want to win the battle where as I actually want to win the war. In war casualty of innocents happen. Every time someone uses violence it also invites violence against your side as human nature will wish harm on people who have "harmed" them. Humans are very risk adverse race. Each time such extreme measures are taken you are adding time as you are slowly chipping away a few of your own supporters (all it may take is a single person and you are out 18 more years) who would rather not risk retaliation against themselves. You are infact allowing more murders to happen prolonging the war by engaging in an ineffective self destructive medium. As you yourself said the state is supporting the other side you can't win with violence if it breaks down to it the state has way more violent ways of shutting you down. The best you can obtain is small victory that cost your side potental resources. You prolong the war (and by extension the death of infants) by using violence in such a battle. The moral and ethical thing to do is nothing except procreate more for your own support and keep throwing more "red tape" in the way to help sheild more innocents while you build up the ability to stop it.
It's not "logical"; it's just "convenient for pro-choice rhetoric". A lot of people say that capital punishment is murder, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that killing judges or jurors or executioners is justified, and if someone did shoot a judge over it, people on both sides of the debate would be rightfully horrified.
You don't hear anyone saying that because you only hang out with liberals and other right-wingers. Killing abortion providers absolutely is the logical conclusion to the belief that abortion is the mass murder of children. Just as, for example, killing cops is the logical conclusion to the belief that they're racist oppressors. Killing abortion providers happens to be considerably more tactically practical. They are, after all, unarmed. It's also a decent tactic because it contributes to discouraging medical professionals from doing abortions in addition to the legal campaigns against them.
I believe that the premise of the argument isn't exactly correct to begin with, as most of us do not believe that it is always justified to take a murderer's life. I would venture a guess that the most prevalent position on this matter is that it is permissible to take the life of another when that other is actively threatening the life of a 3rd party and no suitable alternatives exist that would otherwise end that threat.
If so, and if you believed that abortion is murder, then you would probably consider yourself morally justified to take an abortion doctor's life if the following conditions were met:
1. They were in the process of an abortion
2. No other alternative existed to end the threat
But moral permissibility and moral obligations are different.
Abortion's problem is that people want to kill their babies and won't stop to do so. Therefore we have to accept that some women some of the time will abort. There are also justified reasons at times for doing so, and this is a big reason why we need to back off as a government from allowing or disallowing this sort of thing and why while we can publicly talk about morality. We can encourage better ideas to come to the forefront through some debate.
I remain unmoved by the arguments against abortion as it relates to murder, considering that I am Malthusian and we have since the time of abortion legality in the US seen a decline in violent crimes rate (I know correlation isn't always causation as we have the rise of video games as well here, but it is a strong enough trend). Culling people from an overpopulated can be seen as a rise in opportunity for those still alive and not in direct competition over resources. It is in this warped factor, that allowing some abortion to continue places less of a burden on a society that sees little value in the poor. Furthermore, by connecting the murder of a baby to the lack of structured ways to get out of poverty for people, especially mothers, then we must begin to look at allowing this to hang on around the neck of our society that wants to ban something without doing the hard work to purge the evil outright. I'm willing to accommodate that evil to call forth different moralities on dealing with unwanted children.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Newman seems to have intimated as much to Scott Roeder before he killed Tiller, is why I say "probably".
Do you believe that violence is justified or that murder is justified, or both?
Because, if I were to believe that abortion is murder, and that there were no nonviolent solutions to the abortion problem that wouldn't be immediate (which I don't), I would want the abortion doctors locked up not killed, because that's what I want to happen to my murders. I think that going straight to murder, without giving the chance of abortion doctors a chance to atone (under the hypothetical premise that abortion is murder), and wouldn't say that the logical conclusion is straight murder. Why would you think that murder is necessary?
Graham from Loading Ready Run
Certainly locking up murderers is preferable. But when the apparatus of the state supports the murderers, how are you going to lock them up? If you tried, the swat teams would swiftly destroy your make-shift jail, you'd be in a real jail (or dead), and the murderers would be back to murdering. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
Obviously, there are many good alternatives to killing people to stop an atrocity. But there have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. People have tried all manner of non-violent resistance. They've tried legislation, they've tried protest, they've tried regulation, they've even tried prayer. How many more million would you let be murdered before you were willing to fight back?
What I'm trying to get at, is who is actually taking the position you want to establish? It's fairly pointless to discuss if it's a position that few, short of the mentally disturbed, would advocate.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Ah but you are looking at the short term, you want to win the battle where as I actually want to win the war. In war casualty of innocents happen. Every time someone uses violence it also invites violence against your side as human nature will wish harm on people who have "harmed" them. Humans are very risk adverse race. Each time such extreme measures are taken you are adding time as you are slowly chipping away a few of your own supporters (all it may take is a single person and you are out 18 more years) who would rather not risk retaliation against themselves. You are infact allowing more murders to happen prolonging the war by engaging in an ineffective self destructive medium. As you yourself said the state is supporting the other side you can't win with violence if it breaks down to it the state has way more violent ways of shutting you down. The best you can obtain is small victory that cost your side potental resources. You prolong the war (and by extension the death of infants) by using violence in such a battle. The moral and ethical thing to do is nothing except procreate more for your own support and keep throwing more "red tape" in the way to help sheild more innocents while you build up the ability to stop it.
I believe that the premise of the argument isn't exactly correct to begin with, as most of us do not believe that it is always justified to take a murderer's life. I would venture a guess that the most prevalent position on this matter is that it is permissible to take the life of another when that other is actively threatening the life of a 3rd party and no suitable alternatives exist that would otherwise end that threat.
If so, and if you believed that abortion is murder, then you would probably consider yourself morally justified to take an abortion doctor's life if the following conditions were met:
1. They were in the process of an abortion
2. No other alternative existed to end the threat
But moral permissibility and moral obligations are different.
I remain unmoved by the arguments against abortion as it relates to murder, considering that I am Malthusian and we have since the time of abortion legality in the US seen a decline in violent crimes rate (I know correlation isn't always causation as we have the rise of video games as well here, but it is a strong enough trend). Culling people from an overpopulated can be seen as a rise in opportunity for those still alive and not in direct competition over resources. It is in this warped factor, that allowing some abortion to continue places less of a burden on a society that sees little value in the poor. Furthermore, by connecting the murder of a baby to the lack of structured ways to get out of poverty for people, especially mothers, then we must begin to look at allowing this to hang on around the neck of our society that wants to ban something without doing the hard work to purge the evil outright. I'm willing to accommodate that evil to call forth different moralities on dealing with unwanted children.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>