OMG We have a martyr

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but one man does not have that capacity, and neither does the anti-abortion movement as a whole.

If the anti-abortion movement as a whole had the balls to violently resist the gross injustices they perceive, they could easily kill most/all of the abortion doctors.

And even if they did, they would have to risk a breakdown of civilization, with unpredictable and highly destructive consequences.

The breakdown of Nazi Germany's "civilization" would not have been lamentable.

That would seem like a lack of belief in democracy (or this particular democracy) beforehand, and would therefore be begging the question.

If you witness a democracy that consistently supports the mass slaughter of a disenfranchised minority for decades - a democracy whose chief undemocratic institution (the Supreme Court) has also stated that democratic solutions to the problem are illegal - then your faith in democracy would be legitimately weakened.

But even so, in what way is vigilantism justified? As "true justice"? Or because it brings results? Because I would find the latter highly questionable, and the former self-defeating if attempted by a sufficiently small minority.

Both. I refer you again to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

The breakdown of law and order also affects the killers of slaveowners or Klansmen. If you set rule of law aside, you are moving towards opening yourself and those who on your side to attacks from the majority. And when the Klansmen are armed and out you don't want to be black in the South.

The unborn have literally no protection from the law right now - in fact, the state has enshrined the right of their killers. So things can't get any worse in that regard.

Even if they turn out to be counter-productive?

I can't see how his actions are decreasing the likelihood of abortion becoming illegal. There's no way that will happen democratically.

[MRT144]

Oh, not at all, the dude is definitely a murderer and what he did was wrong. But it is also the necessary consequence of a seemingly innocuous assumption that is believed by a huge minority of the population (including himself). Therefore he's not a hypocrite.

Indeed, he is not a hypocrite, just garden variety wrong.

[Kitschum]

If the anti-abortion movement as a whole had the balls to violently resist the gross injustices they perceive, they could easily kill most/all of the abortion doctors.

Now that is just ridiculous. Most doctors can perform abortions. They are not complicated procedures. Secondly, as soon as the violence from the anti-abortion side escalates you'd have to assume that the anti-anti-abortion violence will increase by a more than proportionate amount.

The breakdown of Nazi Germany's "civilization" would not have been lamentable.

I mean a breakdown of democracy and civil order, the the two things I mentioned. It is lamentable because it would lead to economic destruction (lower standard of living), unpredictable outbreaks of violence, and an uncertain new order. Maybe the new order institutes eugenics including mandatory abortions in some cases.

If you witness a democracy that consistently supports the mass slaughter of a disenfranchised minority for decades - a democracy whose chief undemocratic institution (the Supreme Court) has also stated that democratic solutions to the problem are illegal - then your faith in democracy would be legitimately weakened.

Yes, if you have no faith in democracy then your case is strenghthened, but it is still begging the question. What about those who still have faith in the political system?

Both. I refer you again to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Other anti-abortionists may not agree with the characterization of their position as akin to the Warsaw Ghetto, i.e back-to-the-wall genocide. You can't simply take the most extreme evaluation of the political situation and ascribe that to all anti-abortionists. You're arguing the position of a minority of a minority, and I would guess a very small one.

The unborn have literally no protection from the law right now - in fact, the state has enshrined the right of their killers. So things can't get any worse in that regard.

But it can. The anti-abortion movement presumably convinces women that get pregnant unexpectedly to not get abortions and give birth anyway. Remember, it's not pro- and anti-abortion, but pro- and anti-choice. If the movement's credibility is damaged more women would elect, by their choice, to get abortions.

[Kuciwalker]

Now that is just ridiculous. Most doctors can perform abortions. They are not complicated procedures. Secondly, as soon as the violence from the anti-abortion side escalates you'd have to assume that the anti-anti-abortion violence will increase by a more than proportionate amount.

Dude, if doctors who performed abortions were subject to constant threat of vigilante violence, it would be a pretty significant deterrent.

I mean a breakdown of democracy and civil order, the the two things I mentioned.

That's what I meant too.

It is lamentable because it would lead to economic destruction (lower standard of living), unpredictable outbreaks of violence, and an uncertain new order. Maybe the new order institutes eugenics including mandatory abortions in some cases.

A Jewish uprising in Nazi Germany would not have been condemnable just because it might lead to an even more radical anti-Jewish state.

Yes, if you have no faith in democracy then your case is strenghthened, but it is still begging the question. What about those who still have faith in the political system?

Their faith is ridiculous. There's no chance of them ever achieving their agenda democratically.

Other anti-abortionists may not agree with the characterization of their position as akin to the Warsaw Ghetto, i.e back-to-the-wall genocide. You can't simply take the most extreme evaluation of the political situation and ascribe that to all anti-abortionists. You're arguing the position of a minority of a minority, and I would guess a very small one.

It's the necessary consequence of their belief (early fetuses are people). It doesn't matter if they agree.

But it can. The anti-abortion movement presumably convinces women that get pregnant unexpectedly to not get abortions and give birth anyway. Remember, it's not pro- and anti-abortion, but pro- and anti-choice. If the movement's credibility is damaged more women would elect, by their choice, to get abortions.

more women would get abortions in order to spite the pro-life crowd, even if they otherwise wouldn't have aborted the kid?




Fundamentally, if even 10-20% of the population acted like this guy, they would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed in this country.

[Kitschum]

Dude, if doctors who performed abortions were subject to constant threat of vigilante violence, it would be a pretty significant deterrent.

It would only lead to the swift(er) elimination of the threat.

A Jewish uprising in Nazi Germany would not have been condemnable just because it might lead to an even more radical anti-Jewish state.

In 1943-44 when the genocide machine was in full gear, ok. But in 1933-39, no doubt it would have.

It's the necessary consequence of their belief (early fetuses are people). It doesn't matter if they agree.

You're still arguing the minority of a minority. That realization is key to my argument. 10-20% is a fantasy. Try 0.1-0.2% that would conceivably take any part at all in the kind of violence you propose. You'd destroy all that you've worked for for decades, the organization, the influence, the funds and the credibility in the ongoing culture war for a miniscule chance at success by whatever odd measure.

more women would get abortions in order to spite the pro-life crowd, even if they otherwise wouldn't have aborted the kid?

No, not out of spite, out of disgust and repulsion and the marginalization of anti-abortionists more women would not listen to them in the first place and go on their regular lives where abortion is normal and women who want them are not shunned or thought ill of.

If you're interested, compare international abortion rates some time - they are by no means uniform everywhere, so there's a lot more that matters apart from the legal situation.

[DinoDoc]

It doesn't require the State to define it. I think most people can define what murder is all on their own.

Given that the definition of the word is an unlawful killing with intent. It kind of does require a State to define it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, sorry, saw the thread title and poster and thought this was going to be more about Lancer.

Carry on.

[Elok]

I repeat: I am pro-life, but I oppose the murder of abortion doctors. For one thing, there are considerably more moral ambiguities at work than in the Holocaust. For another, it's politically counterproductive; we're not going to shoot our way out of this. While terrorism has hampered the efficiency of abortion clinics, it hasn't done anything that couldn't be accomplished by persistent legal harassment, which kills nobody. There are very few abortion clinics in Nebraska, not from fear of violence so much as because almost none make it through the red tape.

[Asher]

The lack of abortion clinics in Nebraska has more to do with the hideousness of the population encouraging abstinence. We could learn a lot from Nebraska.

[Kuciwalker]

It would only lead to the swift(er) elimination of the threat.

There's no way to eliminate the threat short of martial law.

In 1943-44 when the genocide machine was in full gear, ok. But in 1933-39, no doubt it would have.

Then genocide machine is already in full gear. Your idea that people are going to MANDATE ABORTIONS out of spite to the anti-abortion crowd is ludicrous.

You're still arguing the minority of a minority. That realization is key to my argument. 10-20% is a fantasy. Try 0.1-0.2% that would conceivably take any part at all in the kind of violence you propose. You'd destroy all that you've worked for for decades, the organization, the influence, the funds and the credibility in the ongoing culture war for a miniscule chance at success by whatever odd measure.

Dude, if there were three to six hundred thousand domestic antiabortion terrorists it would result in a HUGE drop in the abortion rate.

No, not out of spite, out of disgust and repulsion and the marginalization of anti-abortionists more women would not listen to them in the first place and go on their regular lives where abortion is normal and women who want them are not shunned or thought ill of.

This is ridiculous. More women would hear their arguments because news stories about how women and doctors involved in abortions had been killed by terrorists would be on the news all the time. The idea that this would encourage them is hilarious.

[Theben]

The lack of abortion clinics in Nebraska has more to do with the hideousness of the population encouraging abstinence. We could learn a lot from Nebraska.

Drake is from Nebraska. Be nice.

[Wiglaf]

Kuciwalker as usual is the only smart person in this thread. I want to saw my nuts off reading posters like Ming who think they are clever because they looked up 'murder' in the dictionary this morning.

I repeat: I am pro-life, but I oppose the murder of abortion doctors. For one thing, there are considerably more moral ambiguities at work than in the Holocaust.

Not if you believe life begins at conception. In many ways he can argue this is worse than the Holocaust because many more are dying.

For another, it's politically counterproductive; we're not going to shoot our way out of this.

Doing something political counterproductive is very different from doing something morally wrong. It's like baking a bad pizza.

While terrorism has hampered the efficiency of abortion clinics, it hasn't done anything that couldn't be accomplished by persistent legal harassment, which kills nobody.

How could this be constitutional exactly? I'm practically jizzing over here waiting for your response.

[Wiglaf]

I take it back - this is also stupid

Oh, not at all, the dude is definitely a murderer and what he did was wrong. But it is also the necessary consequence of a seemingly innocuous assumption that is believed by a huge minority of the population (including himself). Therefore he's not a hypocrite.

If only because it's not a necessary consequence, but also because it's not clear on what basis something can be wrong if it's a necessary consequence of a reasonable belief held by 40% of the people.

I am surrounded by idiots and pizza flippers.

[DaShi]

You're stupid!

[Wiglaf]

It is amazing you have survived this long. I could have sworn China would have taken out Taiwan by now?