Who is going to win?

[Wezil]

And you call me "unreasonable"?

****.

[Wezil]

I'm talking to a.kitman, not you, though you seem to be heading the same direction...

I'd be engaged in regular and repeated civil disobedience.

Violence wouldn't be part of it.

[Wezil]

The two of you can apologise now.

[Jon Miller]

I'd be engaged in regular and repeated civil disobedience.

Violence wouldn't be part of it.

I thought you initially asked why I (and people with similar views) were not being violent in our discussion before.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I'd be engaged in regular and repeated civil disobedience.

Violence wouldn't be part of it.

I am not sure how that would help either.

Well, maybe arguments should be pushed harder.

I have done so here after seeing that standing back didn't do much for ~10 years.

JM

[Wezil]

How large is the "pro-life" movement?

I suspect they have the numbers to overwhelm the legal system.

[a.kitman]

Wait, you're arguing that Pro-Lifers are hypocrites because they aren't taking up arms over the fact that abortions are legal?

Please go away and don't come back until you're remotely reasonable. Even Ben Kenobi hasn't said anything that unreasonable in weeks.

So tell me then if the US goverment rounded up and executed 1 million unemployed each year would you just be on here telling us we where beeing unreasonable.

I have tried to put myself in the shoes of a pro-lifer and the only moral conclusion i could come to was a revolution one way or the other. doesnt have to be violent. But violence definitely would be justified.

[Wezil]

The two of you can apologise now.

Well gentlemen?

Are we having a civil discussion or not?

[Elok]

There is over 1 million abortion per year in the US alone. How can people that think life starts at conception sleep at night? Lets say we rounded up and killed 1 millon unemployed per year. I bet thos pro-lifers wouldnt just stand around and debate the legality of it.

I have no interest in joining yet another abortion argument, but this statement is IMO rather naive. Human beings will generally only take decisive action to prevent murder or save human life when one or both of the following criteria are satisfied:

1. There is a chance they personally, or someone they know and care about deeply, will be murdered.
2. There is a low risk of harm to them if they take action, or at least lower than the risk of them doing nothing.

In your unemployed example, plenty of people would take action if they were personally unemployed--namely, they would hide, or if they were unusually brave rescue others. If related to an unemployed person, they would rescue said person. Since death squads are rarely safe to confront or publicly criticize, we--as in the bulk of humanity--would likely take no other action, except perhaps write anonymous letters of complaint if we thought ourselves safe from discovery and reprisal, or were in a privileged position. The average man is decent enough, but almost by definition is not a hero.

[a.kitman]

Yes Elok i know its a pretty bad example and of course iam going way overboard. But I just have to question people that say abortion=murder and then thinks this elections most important question is health care or taxes.

[MrFun]

From the legendary George Carlin on abortion:

Boy these conservatives are really something aren't they? they're all in favour of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn but once you're born you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born you're fine. If you're preschool you're ****ed. Conservatives don't give a **** about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life. Pro-life. These people aren't pro-life they're killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? What they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? they're anti-woman. Simple as it gets. Anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state. Pro-life. You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uterus's do you? No you don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies do you? No that might be something Christ would do.

[Elok]

Yes Elok i know its a pretty bad example and of course iam going way overboard. But I just have to question people that say abortion=murder and then thinks this elections most important question is health care or taxes.

Well, in the U.S., the chances of anything being done about abortion are basically squat regardless of how the election goes; this has been going on for almost forty years already. Plenty of people have resorted to violence and accomplished nothing--indeed, I would say they've been counterproductive. As for Wezil's civil disobedience, that would require a critical mass of very brave people willing to stand up for total strangers. A very persistent critical mass, at that, since public opinion remains just about split. We might screw things up for a few weeks, maybe save a few lives...and then that jammed-up legal system would inconvenience or upset the public (lots of actual criminals set loose to make room in jail for us, for example), opinion would turn against us and things would be worse than before. Less counterproductive, and less appalling, but still not too effective, and still asking a lot from ordinary people.

[self biased]

From the legendary George Carlin on abortion:

and that was twenty years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, in the U.S., the chances of anything being done about abortion are basically squat regardless of how the election goes; this has been going on for almost forty years already. Plenty of people have resorted to violence and accomplished nothing--indeed, I would say they've been counterproductive. As for Wezil's civil disobedience, that would require a critical mass of very brave people willing to stand up for total strangers. A very persistent critical mass, at that, since public opinion remains just about split. We might screw things up for a few weeks, maybe save a few lives...and then that jammed-up legal system would inconvenience or upset the public (lots of actual criminals set loose to make room in jail for us, for example), opinion would turn against us and things would be worse than before. Less counterproductive, and less appalling, but still not too effective, and still asking a lot from ordinary people.

And let's be honest, pro-life folk tend to vote on that issue. I know people who you would basically called Democrats, but would never vote for them because they can't bring themselves to vote for anyone who is pro-choice.

[Jon Miller]

The first time I voted I voted heavily based on the abortion issue.

I learned from that experience.

JM