Saturday, November 12, 2011

Pro-Choice Invites Violence, Pro-Life Declines

Ben From Canada writes "Pro-Life: Why So Non-Violent?". 

I thought I figured out the pro-life side of the abortion debate...however, my solution only brought more questions, troubling questions that I hope some pro-life person will answer.

Chances are, Ben hasn't figured out anything about the pro-life side of the abortion debate.  But let's play with it, shall we?

Most of us pro-choice types figure that "abortion is murder" & other such phrases are hyperbole. No one is really silly enough to believe that a clump of cells in a woman's body is a human being...right?

If an adult willfully kills a born child, is it murder?  What if at some point (hypothetically), it becomes legal for an adult to kill a born child?  Would it still be murder?  Would you consider it murder even though it would be at that point in time legal?  Ben, you an I are both 'clumps of cells'.  All human beings are. 

Well, as it turns out, these people DO think that a fertilized egg is really a person. Perhaps it's through brainwashing, simplistic logic, or just plain bad information, but they believe it wholeheartedly, as recent pushes towards "personhood" laws have shown. So that explains why they're fighting so hard to "save" these "babies". But that opens another question. 

Actually, we think/know, a fertilized egg is a human being.  And as such, we believe they deserve to be granted rights of personhood.  You know, like the right to not be willfully killed.  No Ben, brainwashing and simplistic logic, along with a lot of bad information, is what it took to successfully dehumanize HUMAN zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.... you know, like in your view.

Now, if it were me, and I literally thought there are people who are legally allowed to kill babies by the truckload, and all attempts to change the law were destined to fail, well...I'd be taking the law into my own hands right now. In fact, if the propositions "abortion is murder" and "abortion will not be made illegal in our lifetimes" are both true, abortion bombing is the only moral route.

So that leads me to the question: why are you not bombing clinics, pro-lifer? Why are you not assassinating doctors? What will it take to make you start doing so? (emphasis is mine)

That would be because pro-lifer's are for the most part, law abiding citizens.  Exceptions being the Scott Roeder's of the world.  Thankfully, they are rare.

Or is it that the "saving the babies" rhetoric is a smoke-screen for your desire to control women and your wish to enforce your repressive sexual views on society as a whole? 

Of course all this is about sex.  Why not?  What's more important to a pro-abort than an orgasm?  Nothing, not even the life of a developing human being.

9 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To answer the question - Why don't I bomb abortion clinics? Um I dunno, maybe its because I'm PRO-LIFE. As in, I believe everyone has a right to life. Not just babies. Not just people who never do anything wrong and never make mistakes. But everyone. Even the mothers that want to end their pregnancies, and the doctors that agree to kill their children. Everyone.

    And I'm so tired of hearing about this "repressive" view of sexuality that pro-lifers hold. Not every pro-life person thinks that sex only belongs in marriage, and should only happen when you want to create a baby. Just because we acknowledge that children that are created as a result of having sex (and 98% of abortions are performed on women who WANTED to have sex at the time), doesn't mean we think that having sex was the mistake. The mistake was having sex without thinking about what could happen, and not accepting the fact that an innocent baby could be created as a result of their actions, an innocent baby that does not deserve to have their life cut short because their parents "didn't mean" to get pregnant. Its a fact that sex creates babies, not a "repressive" view.

    Also, sorry about the double post - I made a mistake the first time :S oops!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dolce, you've shot down their entire argument with just a few words. Awesome!

    "The mistake was having sex without thinking about what could happen, and not accepting the fact that an innocent baby could be created as a result of their actions, an innocent baby that does not deserve to have their life cut short because their parents "didn't mean" to get pregnant."

    Which is why they deny a fetus is a baby. Denial makes killing easier.

    It's that "It's my body" argument, not considering who elses body is involved.

    It's that "No-one can use my body without permission" argument, ignoring the fact they both knew pregnancy was a possibility.

    It's that "I signed on for sex w/o consequences", without considering how that may affect others.

    Oh wait, we are talking about pro-choice feminists, aren't we?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Assassinating abortionists would amount to civil war, as if we tried to organize to do that, the state would come in and quash our organization. So the rules of Just Revolution theory would apply. And such an military action would fail to meet Just Revolution theory criteria: we do not have the support of the majority of the population. We have not exhausted peaceful means. We do not have the hope of winning such a campaign. We would cause more harm than good in killing abortionists (as it would turn people against us and set back the campaign to fight for the right to life).

    But they never accept that explanation. They don't want to be confused by the facts, their minds are made up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And so, peaceful protests it is. Nice to know peace is what's getting under their skin though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Response: http://benfromcanada.blogspot.com/2011/11/normal-0-microsoftinternetexplorer4.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. "We would cause more harm than good in killing abortionists (as it would turn people against us and set back the campaign to fight for the right to life)."

    Not to mention it is immoral, illegal and flies in the face of pro-life's postulations of the "sanctity of life."

    'Assassinating abortionists would amount to civil war, as if we tried to organize to do that, the state would come in and quash our organization."

    Really? You people have been killing, bombing, setting fire, etc, etc to abortion providers. But yet, you guys see yourselves as the victims.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You people have been killing, bombing, setting fire, etc, etc to abortion providers."

    No, actually we haven't. A few crazed crackpots have.

    "But yet, you guys see yourselves as the victims."

    No, actually we don't. We see unborn babies as the victims. How you can see it any other way is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Suzanne: if we're so busily bombing abortion mills and shooting abortionists we would have wiped them all out 40 years ago. 54 million dead on their side-who's violent again? Jamming scissors into the necks of babies-who's violent again? Of course it's all different when someone like James Pouillion is murdered in broad daylight by a foaming at the mouth abortion zealot. SMH.

    If prochoice fanatics were so concerned about prolife 'violence' they'd get off their asses and volunteer as clinic escorts, not sit online and whine about it. And if they 'trusted women' as they continually proclaim, they'd have no clinic escorts at all. Morons.

    ReplyDelete