Question to my fellow pro-lifers on the killing of abortion doctors

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Disclaimer 1: Even if I had a good argument for it, I would never kill anyone for acting legally, abortion doctors included.
Disclaimer 2: I don't want this to morph into yet another debate about abortion in general, so please keep trolling and personal attacks to yourself, regardless of what side you're on.

Question: Are abortion doctors innocent?

I've always struggled with this issue.

I equate abortion to an advanced stage of slavery. Slavery took only liberty necessarily, whereas abortion goes beyond even that, and takes life. It is the wholesale denial of the most basic civil right to an entire class of people, based on factors (such as race and age) entirely beyond their control. And that's the nicest thing I can say about it. It has killed millions. That's a fact. If abortion is murder, then we are casually allowing the slaughter of millions of not just humans, but babies for christ's sake.

If abortion is such a horror, then it follows that we must go to extreme measures to stop it. How extreme? A war was fought to end slavery. Are we willing to use violence, even killing others, to secure the right to life? Can it be secured peaceably? How many kids will die by then?

My dad, who ran an adoption agency for awhile, asked this question of his priest (namely if God wanted him to bomb abortion clinics). The priest said that he had seen war (I think he was a Korea vet), and that even abortion didn't justify murdering doctors. If violence isn't the answer to the killing of children, then to what can violence ever conceivably be the answer? Catholics and Christians aren't pacifists.

I asked Peter Kreeft a similar question in an email. He simply responded that he had no disagreements to what I said. He agreed that abortion was an abomination, but that killing abortion doctors was murderous.

The issue, I think, cruxes on whether or not abortion doctors are innocent. If they are, killing them is murder.

My answer is I don't know, and therefore I can not responsibly act. In the eyes of the law they are innocent. In the eyes of God, I don't know. There are passages in the bible that say to respect the human rules of law, because it is divinely granted.

We live in the freest, most benevolent and humane world power ever to exist. I cannot expect perfection. But how humane is a nation that allows the killing of the most disadvantaged of its citizens?

Not humane at all.

 

[Zorkorist]

The Bible goes into great detail what Murder is. Abortion doesn't make the cut.

One might stone a girl for adultery, however.

You fucking religious nuts have nothing to stand on.

-John

 

[Dr. Zaus]

A fetus is NOT a baby.
A fetus is NOT a child!

Step outside of yourself for a moment and take on the perspective of someone who believes the opposite not because some religion told them this, but because they simply consider a a fetus to be a human life a "Unique combination of human DNA which consumes nutrients and grows and, if not otherwise acted upon to end it, would usually become a tax-payer"

Imagine that you had that perception of what a fetus was and, as such, abortion was killing a human.

Now, from that perspective, what should be done about abortion?

Nearly half of all fetuses spontaneously abort, does that design make God the greatest abortionist?

See the above definition.

I struggle to reconcile my morality with the concept of a war to stop something so horrible.

So start realizing that your support for war to 'stop something horrible’ through war is just as wrong.

Now really what is your problem with an intelligent species controlling the results of its instinct for reproduction? The method? Come up with a better one.

The definition of a human life is what I would say is important. A condom does not tend to take the life of a human.

It's a medical scientific term and is exactly defined.

are you telling me that the definitions of human and life don't apply to a fetus?

We can argue 'person hood' just like we have in the past for slaves, women, jews and blacks; but we can't argue that they aren’t human or alive.

1 fetilized embryo = 1 baby

1 fertilized embryo, implanted in the mother and capable consuming nutrients and growth into adult hood, =1 human life.

the only sticking point is when to call it a baby.

human life. People use baby or child because it's emotional, but the real argument is that it is a human life.

Look at you justifying murder based on time or looks. You should be on the abortionist side. You think like they do.

how about we not note a distinction not between an person and a non person, as this kind of distinction has walked us down the wrong path every time it's been tried; but we make the distinction between alive and not alive.

This distinction, on the scientific level, means an implanted egg that is receiving nutrients and growing.

no thought for the horror of the forced subjugation of women by men unrelated and uninvolved in their personal issues and so willing to think for them.

in the end, MoonBeam you are totally right there. Forcing someone to keep another human alive is not something we do as a society... and an abortion is just that, the mother choosing to no longer keep the human life that is growing in her alive.

If it was a viable baby we would have her give the human to authorities that would take care of it: But we don't force people to give up their own physiological and psychological well being for others... this is why we are so great-full when someone, out of mercy, does it.

So you make a very valid argument...

But that's the point, on one side we have a human life that has the rights of a human life on the other we have a human life with no rights at all and even if we gave it legal rights that wouldn't much help the situation.

In the end we simply need more people willing to give up what they want for the well being of others: A simple fix that would solve many problems including this one.

 

[Murloc]

/faceplam

god will judge them, you don't have to kill them, they will burn in hell for the eternity. Question solved.

 

[Craig234]

/faceplam

god will judge them, you don't have to kill them, they will burn in hell for the eternity. Question solved.

I'm not discussing abortion here, but by your logic, wouldn't that mean not to stop any crimes, because we should not 'do justice', it's a religious matter?

You're saying to those who view abortion as the murder of babies, let it go on and it's a religious matter of justice.

So why wouldn't the same argument apply to any other murderer or criminal?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So why wouldn't the same argument apply to any other murderer or criminal?

the same rules DO apply; Christians don't go killing people, even when someone clearly committed a heinous murder for which they are not being incarcerated (see OJ Simpson)

 

[iGas]

If abortion of unborn fetus equate to murder in your definition, then it is fair to say that Bush/Cheney and everyone that involved in wars are murderer and should be brought to trial.

It is odd that the religious fanatics views abortion is wrong, but sending men into their death and to kills others is okay.

IMHO, it is a F__kup value.

PS. is there truly a "God"?
And, please don't give me that BS on self determination craps, because most if not all parents that truly love their children would step in and stop them from arguing let alone killing each others.

 

[BoberFett]

Forcing someone to keep another human alive is not something we do as a society.

Are you kidding? Every parent in this country is forced to keep another human alive. If you don't you'll be charged with anything from child endangerment to homicide.

I'm as pro-choice as can be, but at least I'm honest enough to admit that the definition of when a fetus becomes a person with rights and protection under the law are purely arbitrary and definitely up for debate. Most pro-choicers are pieces of shit who are as black and white as the pro-lifers they despise.

 

[Red Dawn]

Are you kidding? Every parent in this country is forced to keep another human alive. If you don't you'll be charged with anything from child endangerment to homicide.

I'm as pro-choice as can be, but at least I'm honest enough to admit that the definition of when a fetus becomes a person with rights and protection under the law are purely arbitrary and definitely up for debate. Most pro-choicers are pieces of shit who are as black and white as the pro-lifers they despise.

I don't agree, I believe most Pro Choice would hope the choice would be to have the baby but believe that the choice should be up to the woman not the state or some religion.

 

[Kappo]

I don't agree, I believe most Pro Choice would hope the choice would be to have the baby but believe that the choice should be up to the woman not the state or some religion.

I think that might be the intent of most, but as we are reminded of often, people usually make the selfish decision.

Pro-choice people ARE on the wrong side of the debate as far as morals go, IMO (myself included). I think that people should be allowed to choose as they wish, but I have no illusions about it. I know it is killing one of our own kind, which is inherently wrong.

However I still think that, until that baby can live on it's own, the mother is "God" and she has the right to choose whether it lives or dies. Where I part ways is that they do not feel like they are killing a living thing.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think that might be the intent of most, but as we are reminded of often, people usually make the selfish decision.

Pro-choice people ARE on the wrong side of the debate as far as morals go, IMO (myself included). I think that people should be allowed to choose as they wish, but I have no illusions about it. I know it is killing one of our own kind, which is inherently wrong.

However I still think that, until that baby can live on it's own, the mother is "God" and she has the right to choose whether it lives or dies. Where I part ways is that they do not feel like they are killing a living thing.

Well as Boberfett stated, there needs to be a definition of when a fetus becomes a person with rights and protection under the law and that at the moment it is purely arbitrary and definitely up for debate.

 

[Jaskalas]

However I still think that, until that baby can live on it's own, the mother is "God" and she has the right to choose whether it lives or dies. Where I part ways is that they do not feel like they are killing a living thing.

Sorry, but it just came to mind that your exact definition may include anyone under the age of 18.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Step outside of yourself for a moment and take on the perspective of someone who believes the opposite not because some religion told them this, but because they simply consider a a fetus to be a human life a "Unique combination of human DNA which consumes nutrients and grows and, if not otherwise acted upon to end it, would usually become a tax-payer"

Then they should consider my argument about the fundamental thing that makes humans humans and separates them from animals. It's not the DNA; our DNA is 99% similar to that of other mammals. It's the ability to have a consciousness capable of abstract thought. A 2-day old embryo doesn't have that and neither does a fetus.

In the end we simply need more people willing to give up what they want for the well being of others: A simple fix that would solve many problems including this one.

The sticky part is how you define what is in someone's well being and who's well being should be sacrificed for someone else's or something else's well being.

 

[hal2kilo]

Are you kidding? Every parent in this country is forced to keep another human alive. If you don't you'll be charged with anything from child endangerment to homicide.

I'm as pro-choice as can be, but at least I'm honest enough to admit that the definition of when a fetus becomes a person with rights and protection under the law are purely arbitrary and definitely up for debate. Most pro-choicers are pieces of shit who are as black and white as the pro-lifers they despise.

This will never be solved by science by the way. It will always be conjecture.

I'm surprised the fanatics haven't defined "A twinkle in daddy's eye" the beginning of life.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sorry, but it just came to mind that your exact definition may include anyone under the age of 18.

I know lots of people who moved out before they were 18, had estranged parents, etc.

 

[shira]

However I still think that, until that baby can live on it's own, the mother is "God" and she has the right to choose whether it lives or dies. Where I part ways is that they do not feel like they are killing a living thing.

Sorry, but it just came to mind that your exact definition may include anyone under the age of 18.

So you really didn't understand that "live on its own" was referring to biological viability, not financial independence?

 

[shira]

This will never be solved by science by the way. It will always be conjecture.

I'm surprised the fanatics haven't defined "A twinkle in daddy's eye" the beginning of life.

Actually, it's not the "beginning of life" that's important. It's the beginning of personhood.

The anti-abortion crowd insists that you're a person the instant you're alive. They don't see a distinction between a free zygote that hasn't yet attached to the wall of the endometrium and an infant giggling in its playpen. They see both as "babies."

This is not about definitions. It's not about the fuzzy gray area - somewhere near the end of the 2nd trimester - where a fetus becomes a person. This is about a group of crazies who want to force their delusions on everyone else.

 

[werepossum]

I think that might be the intent of most, but as we are reminded of often, people usually make the selfish decision.

Pro-choice people ARE on the wrong side of the debate as far as morals go, IMO (myself included). I think that people should be allowed to choose as they wish, but I have no illusions about it. I know it is killing one of our own kind, which is inherently wrong.

However I still think that, until that baby can live on it's own, the mother is "God" and she has the right to choose whether it lives or dies. Where I part ways is that they do not feel like they are killing a living thing.

Well said, and I totally agree.

Then they should consider my argument about the fundamental thing that makes humans humans and separates them from animals. It's not the DNA; our DNA is 99% similar to that of other mammals. It's the ability to have a consciousness capable of abstract thought. A 2-day old embryo doesn't have that and neither does a fetus.

The sticky part is how you define what is in someone's well being and who's well being should be sacrificed for someone else's or something else's well being.

Neither does an infant. Neither do some severely retarded or severely autistic people - or, for that matter, someone in a coma or temporarily unconscious. Defining humanity by the ability to think is perilously close to defining humanity by the ability to think at a certain level or eugenics.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Every parent in this country is forced to keep another human alive.

nope. If you don't want the little guy you can always give him up to the state.

there needs to be a definition of when a fetus becomes a person

this is the problem; When does a slave become a person? when does a woman become a person? when is a Jew a person? When is a native-American a person? The definition of human and life are relatively in biology, therefore the definition of human life is clear.

It is when you count other humans as 'non persons' that we have the worst tragedies in humanity.

It's not the DNA; our DNA is 99% similar to that of other mammals.

The definition of a species is in that other 1%.

It's the ability to have a consciousness capable of abstract thought. A 2-day old embryo doesn't have that and neither does a fetus.

more do most 2 month olds.

I'm surprised the fanatics haven't defined "A twinkle in daddy's eye" the beginning of life.

and is that a human life? You can not get past the unassailable fact that a 2month old fetus is a living unique human.

It's the beginning of personhood.

just like we've denied person hood to an array of others, for the benefit of a select group we should do the same here, right?


Human life is important because we are human and we're just self-centered like that. But as soon as you start saying human life doesn't have inherent worth we can start killing poor people for their organs, having slaves and generally murdering anyone that stands in the way of 'the greater good'.