response to a Proabort attack

I believe abortion is the unjustifiable intentional killing of a human person. This is an immoral act though it is legal in our society in many circumstances. As with preventing any immoral act I am not legally or morally permitted to murder to further the “good” end of preventing abortions.

See these three articles to explain it further.

A secular moral argument:

A general Christian argument:

And a Catholic Christian argument:

Please stop calling Pro-life a movement of murderers. If you are intending to insult you are succeeding. If you are intending to deter and stop violence then you are clearing failing; in fact you are helping those we both disagree with to justify their thoughts and their potential actions.


Addendum:  OC does not indeed share the belief that we should deter violence.  They have stated they are trying to incite violence to “even the score.”  This we oppose.


8 Responses to response to a Proabort attack

  1. OK, Matt, buckle your seat belt cos we’re going on a little logical journey here.
    1. Your “part 1” begins: “…being authentically Pro-Life means we cannot use violence to stop abortion.” Let’s call this proposition (A).
    2. As I pointed out on the earlier thread, banning abortion is violent, because the ban can only be enforced by means of violence. Call this idea (B).
    3. Now, (A) plus (B) yields (C): being authentically Pro-Life means we cannot ban abortion, because to do so would be using violence to stop abortion, which is prohibited by (A).
    4. (C) leads directly to (D): anyone who supports banning abortion is NOT authentically pro-life.
    Do you understand now? If you want to eschew violence, as required by (A) then, because of (B), you have to oppose all efforts to ban abortion, since bans are enforced violently. But by definition, if you oppose banning abortion, then you are pro-choice. That’s what “pro-choice” MEANS.
    So, according to YOUR point (A), in order to be “authentically Pro-Life”, you must be pro-choice.
    SUMMARY: “Pro-life” means supporting an abortion ban; all bans are violent; therefore, “Pro-life” means supporting violence.
    If I’m wrong, do please explain why. I can’t find any errors in any of these steps!

    [Here goes. (B) is erroneous. You cannot truly ban anything in any political system. You can only outlaw, suppress and punish it. (Though Orwell did paint a very bleak picture of the ultimate ineffectualness of opposition to Big Brother.) Without (B) your argument fails.
    To continue an effective Prolife society prevents abortion in all but the rarest cases. In a moral society you encourage chastity, marriage and adoption. The OBGYN who performs the removal of an ectopic pregnancy sadly does his duty and no one get sued. The girl who “gets caught” where the boy is unknown and no where to be found carries to term and gives the baby for adoption.
    So in the end abortion is pessimism. You think there is no way to have a good life (or the life that you’d like) if this pregnancy continues. -DE]

  2. Professor George’s argument boils down to what Shift the Ape said in THE LAST BATTLE: “Freedom doesn’t mean doing what you like. Freedom means doing what I tell you.” The only difference is, George says freedom means doing what the Pope tells you.

    [George Washington said freedom to do whatever you want isn’t freedom; its license. Shift was wrong and that’s Lewis’ point. True freedom is freedom to do what’s right. Again you’re an anarchist. -DE]

  3. I see, your latest post on the other thread indicates you have a problem with (B). You think (B) makes me an anarchist. I’ll repost here my reply from there (slightly modified):

    Believing (B) doesn’t mean I’m an anarchist. I’m not saying the government shouldn’t do violent things. We need the government to do violent things, to criminals, and to wartime foes. I’m just pointing out that having the government do these violent things, is violent. It’s GOOD violence.

    YOU are the one who claims to be non-violent (in (A)), not I. All I’m saying is, if you support a ban, then you’re violent, and although you can call yourself “anti-vigilantism” or “anti-personal-violence” or “anti-illegal-violence”, you cannot call yourself “non-violent”.

    I do discriminate between murderous killing and state executions. One is illegal violence by a person, and the other is legal violence by a government. They’re different, but both are violent, and saying so does not mean I’m an anarchist.

  4. Matt, did you really write: “you cannot truly ban anything in any political system. You can only outlaw, suppress, and punish it.”

    Maybe I’m slow, but I don’t quite see what the difference is between banning something and outlawing it. Do please explain the distinction! Can you provide an example of something which is outlawed, but not banned, or, something which is banned, but not outlawed?

    And, since you object to “ban”, feel free to go back to my first post on this thread, and change all occurrences of the verb “ban” with the more-acceptible-to-you verb “outlaw”. Also replace the noun “ban” with the phrase “law against”. So (B) now reads “Outlawing abortion is violent, because the law against it can only be enforced by means of violence.” OK? NOW please explain what is wrong with the reasoning in my MODIFIED first post on this thread.

  5. For instance, you wrote: “The girl who “gets caught” where the boy is nowhere to be found carries to term and gives the baby up for adoption.”

    OK, but what do you think should be done when a girl doesn’t do this, but instead, gets an illegal abortion, or causes her own abortion? Who should be punished, and how?

  6. Matt says:

    This is interesting. I ask you to please review each and every post and link here at DE. If you find even one that suggests the actions of this cartoon character in the first 5 frames then please point it out to me. I will amend.

    You’re accusation of “murderer” has not been supported by this cartoon nor is it convincing.

  7. Laura says:

    During the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr., rejected physical violence in the civil rights demonstrations. Racial discrimination was not a superficial action that could be conquered with brute force, it was the consequence of a spiritual evil – that evil had to be opposed, and the means for doing it was what he called “soul force.”

    We – Matt and I, and every pro-life worker I know – advocate soul force and not physical violence in the opposition to abortion and other affronts to the sanctity of human life.

    Yes, there are some who advocate some form of physical violence, just as did the Black Panthers during the 1960s. But, as Dr. King denounced the Black Panthers and their vows of violence, we denounce those tactics in no uncertain terms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: