Shake

In my thread on Pat Robertson babble, Mageth quoted Pat from a 700 Club broadcast as saying: This reminded me of an editorial in my hometown's newspaper. The writer referenced a recent story where a abortion doctor was murdered by a pro-life activist. The activist has recently admitted he is responsible for the doc's death, but with the disclaimer that he was only trying to wound the doc, and a wild ricochet killed him. OK, not that shooting someone is a good means to stop him from doing his job, but let's put that aside now. Many other pro-lifers have condemned his actions saying that he crossed the line, even as much as they hate what the doc did. But wait! Here's where it gets good! Apparently some folks, including a minister (who is quoted in the article) say that 'well, the doc was the cause of the murder of hundreds of children.' So, the homicide was justified? What about, 'Thou shalt not kill'? Are they also saying that had abortion been illegal that the doc should have been tried and executed? That's not exactly PRO-life now is it?

The "logic" of some people just drives me nuts sometimes! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Eudaimonist

What pro-lifers will typically say in response to your objection is that they don't object to the killing of people guilty of severe crimes, but only to the killing of the innocent, and unborn babies are innocent of any wrongdoing. There is some logic to this.

(I'm not a pro-lifer. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.)

Born Free

Another stance probably used to justify murder would be that one life was taken which may or may not be regrettable but hundreds of lives were saved which is their ultimate goal.

I can see the method in their madness but don't agree with it.

The Other Michael

By their logic we can justify Mary aborting Baby Jesus (TM) because that would have saved millions of other lives down through the centuries.

It would have made Baby Jesus (TM) cry, but I'm sure he would have come around and seen the point after time.

cheers
Michael

Volestrangler

To which I would respond that given the doctrine of original sin, none of the unborn babies are actually innocent. I would then extend the argument a little further by pointing out that all those babies are in heaven now, whereas if they'd been allowed to grow up and then die some, if not the majority, would have ended up burning in hell as they deserved.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Muriel Volestrangler ]</p>

The Admiral

Let them call themselves pro-lifers but I think we should call them anti-choicers.

The Admiral

Infinity Lover

I think we often end up dealing with the line of reasoning that suits us best, regardless of how 'reasonable' it is. It's often a makeshift justification for our own behaviour more than anything else.

The thing with an anti-abortion stance, is that it's linked to the belief in the human soul (entering the body at conception, according to the official R.K. position), thus the afterlife. But then an abortion would be sending the child's soul straight to heaven, to spend an eternity of perfect bliss there; hardly a horrible fate according to religious beliefs.

(How would you define life? Organic existence? Or the process you go through while your alive? Is life truelly being terminated, or only the temporal earthly part of it? Is anybody being robbed of their "soul"? )

Then one could reason how it's up to God to decide when a life will come to an end and not up to us humans, but when a person dies after getting hit by a drunk driver, or due to a terrorist strike for instance, a religious person might be inclined to say "that person's time had appearantly come". When is it by our hands, and when indirectly through God's mysterious masterplan?

You could also reason that we should let nature take it's cause. But haven't we, through our natural devolpment, aquired the skill to invent techniques, tools, etc., the technique of abortion being one of them? Is anything we do "unnatural", or the result of our natural devolpment?

There's different ways to go with that train of thought, but ultimately it's the one that suits people best that get's adapted; not nessecarily the most logical or sensible one, but more likely the one that (supposedly) justifies one's choices and actions.

By the way.
Personally I don't think that a choice based on emotions is an irrational one by default. Our emotions do affect us in a profound way, and it would be irrational to disregard that.

(I'm pro-choice should anyone wonder)

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Infinity Lover

I think might only be looking at half the picture there. As far as I know, according to Christian doctrine, there's also "the age of accountability" that plays a role. I think a theist could explain how that works better.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Amie

I am a pro-lifer but I in no way condone their actions of homicide.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]</p>

Volestrangler

The "age of accountability" is certainly a Christian doctrine, but it's not, as far as I know, Biblically justifiable. It's acceptance by Christians seems pretty universal, who use it to justify genocide in the Bible by saying that it is better to massacre the enemies' children, sending them to heaven and saving them from damnation, rather than let them live and inevitably become irretrievably wicked.