Eric Rudolph and abortion rhetoric.

[Mark1031]

So Eric Rudolph (Olympic and abortion clinic bomber) was sentenced today for several acts of domestic terrorism although it was only called bombing in the here. Here is part of his statement to the court.

"What they did was participate in the murder of 50 children a week," he said, shackled at the ankles and wearing a red jail uniform. "Abortion is murder and because it is murder I believe deadly force is needed to stop it."

Well I must say that I found this to be a very rational statement. I mean really if Saddam had a prison where he was executing 50 babies/week would you think twice about bombing it?

So a few questions:

Do those who use the rhetoric abortion is murder or even it’s a baby not a choice have some responsibility for creating Rudolph?

If you think an early fetus is a baby then is abortion state sanctioned murder of millions of innocents? Why would you not take up arms to fight this? Why would you not support Rudolph? I mean does anyone think violence is not appropriate when employed to stop genocide?

The relative lack of the likes of Eric Rudolph in the anti-abortion movement belies their own belief in their rhetoric. They don’t really think it’s murder or that the early fetus is a baby, they couldn’t or they would all be Eric Rudolph and rightfully so.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

So in other words, if anti-abortionists don't go around bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors they don't truly believe in the justness of their cause? They can be sincere and at the same time non-violent, I don't see the issue here.

 

[Mark1031]

So in other words, if anti-abortionists don't go around bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors they don't truly believe in the justness of their cause? They can be sincere and at the same time non-violent, I don't see the issue here.

In short yes. If you say it is a baby and murder then it is the worst genocide in history. You would not confront that with nonviolence.

 

[classical_hero]

I take offence at what you are saying. You are basically saying that those who do believe that abortion is murder, must be like this crackpot or else they are not being true to their cause. That has to be the most rediculious thing I have ever heard. You are obviously crazy for saying that. It is like saying that you disagree with murder and to get your point across you must must murder someone. The two are not compatable. Since I believe that abortion is murder, I will not be going around murdering people who disagree with what I belive. It is hypocritical so that in once instance that murder is wrong, and then in another instance you do the exact opposite of what you have just said. It belies your intelligence that you would even say a thing like this. :shakehead

BTW, I have reported you for what you have said.

 

[Mark1031]

But the whole current justification for say the war in Iraq is that Saddam was killing his own people. We obviously favor the use of violence to stop a larger evil. If abortion really is murder then it has killed many more people than Saddam ever did. Therefore it would seem to me that one can't really believe it is murder in the same way as murder of a 1 yr old or a 20 yr old and that rhetoric should be modified.

 

[farting bob]

I dont see anything wrong with abortion as it is now, although as with all sides of a debate, everyone thinks there side is justified. Islamic terrorists felt they were justified in flying planes into WTC, and planting bombs in madrid, london and bali (to name a few of the more well known terrorist locations recently).

 

[ybbor]

I think we're much more likely to stop abortion through nonviolent methods, than be labled as wacko0s and extremists by committing violence

 

[punkbass2000]

I think Mark makes a very strong point, personnally. Some are devout pacifists, of course, but I don't think a lot of people would denounce taking down Hitler, for example. If you really believe fetuses are people and deserve the same rights, then I don't see how you could view abortions and stem cell research as being much different than the Holocaust.

 

[Keshik]

You can't compare taking down Hitler and Saddam with bombing abortion clinics. The murders by Hitler and Saddam were clearly murders, and hence, illegal. We were justified in removing them from power by the necessary means. Abortions, however, are legal, so there can be no justifiable violence to stop a legal act.

The overwhelming majority of us who are against abortions are interested in achieving a change in the law with which we disagree, not killing those who perform abortions. Abortion clinic bombers are hypocrites.

 

[greekguy]

His defense is a joke. Even if he thought he was stopping murder, he was commiting murder in the process. If you want something like this to change, you have to do it non-violently.

 

[Mark1031]

You can't compare taking down Hitler and Saddam with bombing abortion clinics. The murders by Hitler and Saddam were clearly murders, and hence, illegal. We were justified in removing them from power by the necessary means. Abortions, however, are legal, so there can be no justifiable violence to stop a legal act.

True those were clearly murder but carried out under a government directive and thus "legal" in that country. You can certainly oppose abortion personally and even try to make it illegal for the entire country. What I think you cannot do logically is call it murder or call the fetus a baby because the use of those terms would make it genocide and something to be opposed by more vigorous means than just nonviolent protest.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

But the whole current justification for say the war in Iraq is that Saddam was killing his own people. We obviously favor the use of violence to stop a larger evil. If abortion really is murder then it has killed many more people than Saddam ever did. Therefore it would seem to me that one can't really believe it is murder in the same way as murder of a 1 yr old or a 20 yr old and that rhetoric should be modified.

Just because Bush speaks with his anus doesn't mean anyone should pay attention.

I don't agree with this premise. Why should I accept the beliefs of a homicidal maniac? I don't care why he thinks it's justifiable. It's still murder. I personally don't consider abortion (when performed in the first trimester) murder, and am under no obligation to buy into this "true believer's" ideas. Every terrorist thinks he's doing something for a cause. Al Qaeda doesn't see what it does as murder, but as revenge. There's no reason for me to accept that either.

 

[Mark1031]

I don't agree with this premise. Why should I accept the beliefs of a homicidal maniac? I don't care why he thinks it's justifiable.

You misunderstand me. I certainly do not accept his beliefs. However the rhetoric he uses is commonplace in the right to life movement (ie abortion is murder, it;s a baby not a fetus). My point is that thankfully there are not many Rudolphs in these groups. The question is why not? Because if you truly believed this rhetoric his actions are not that unreasonable and could be considered noble. Would you condem a German who bombed the gas chambers at Aushwitz? I think deep down most people who oppose abortion (which I do not argue is unreasonable) realize that it is not really the same as murder.

 

[Masquerouge]

Ok so basically what you're saying, Mark1031, is that a way for pro-life people to be consistent with their rethoric (abortion = murder, foetus = human beings) would be to kill the murderers.
The problem is that this way is actually not only illegal, but inefficient. You can not kill people because you think they're commiting murder ; you must comply with the law, and fight them legally, that's how it goes in democracies. And if you think the law is wrong, that does not gives you the right to break it.
And it is inefficient because bombing an abortion clinic will actually turn people away from pro-lifers. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers wouldn't change their minds, I think, but the great majority of people that have no firm opinion on the matter, the very same people both sides are trying to convince, would definitely turn away from pro-lifers if they chose to kill abortionnists.

 

[Gothmog]

I agree with Mark here wrt the rhetoric of murder.
He's not saying you should believe a homocidal maniac, but he is linking the rhetoric to the response.

As he says, one can oppose abortion and work towards outlawing it, without equating it to murder.
So this is in no way an attack on people opposed to abortion.

Once you start calling abortion murder, you are equating abortion in the US to genocide (a view I first encountered in college).

I know that if there was genocide happening in my neighborhood (or even systematic lynchings) I would go to extreme lengths to make it stop. I wouldn't just be sitting around in church moralizing and writting the occasional letter to congress.

And lets go a step further, what if we do manage to get abortion made illegal in the US. This rhetoric suggests we respond to countries that still allow abortion in the same way as we do countries that systematically murder their own citizens in large numbers. That response has sometimes included invasion and overthrow.

 

[Mark1031]

Ok so basically what you're saying, Mark1031, is that a way for pro-life people to be consistent with their rethoric (abortion = murder, foetus = human beings) would be to kill the murderers.
The problem is that this way is actually not only illegal, but inefficient. You can not kill people because you think they're commiting murder ; you must comply with the law, and fight them legally, that's how it goes in democracies. And if you think the law is wrong, that does not gives you the right to break it.
And it is inefficient because bombing an abortion clinic will actually turn people away from pro-lifers. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers wouldn't change their minds, I think, but the great majority of people that have no firm opinion on the matter, the very same people both sides are trying to convince, would definitely turn away from pro-lifers if they chose to kill abortionnists.

Well do you admit that some laws in a Democracy might be overridden by a higher moral law. Their rhetoric argues that there has been a legalized genocide ongoing for 32 years in this country. As far as tactics the limited violence that there has been makes it quite difficult to get abortions in some parts of the country. Most Drs. will not do them in their office althought they easily could. So they are confined to clinics where the Drs. wear flak jackets to work. Would you work at an abortion clinic in the deep south? If the violence escalated it would certainly alienate the majority but it would also make it almost impossible to get an abortion in some places.

 

[punkbass2000]

He's not saying you should believe a homocidal maniac, but he is linking the rhetoric to the response.

Exactly, and I think here may be where some people are getting lost. There is no advocation or support of Rudolph. Rather, it's that since you don't agree with Rudolph, you really shouldn't call abortion "murder".

 

[Keshik]

You're saying that because we choose nonviolent means of achieving our goals that we don't really believe our rhetoric? I call it claiming the moral high ground.

 

[Mark1031]

You're saying that because we choose nonviolent means of achieving our goals that we don't really believe our rhetoric? I call it claiming the moral high ground.

Not necessarily. If you are a pacifist and oppose all violence then this would be a logically consistent stance. OTOH if you believe in using violence for humanitarian purposes for eg. getting rid of Saddam because he was killing his people or any other use of violence to fight an injustice then no because your rhetoric (if you use the abortion is murder/baby killing rhetoric) implies abortion is the greatest injustice humanity has ever seen.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well do you admit that some laws in a Democracy might be overridden by a higher moral law.

I don't, actually. Since there is no God, I don't see any higher moral law that the one chosen by the people. But this is besides the point ; I agree with you. Pro-lifers using the terms murder for abortion, and babies for foetuses, should be consistent with their own analogies, and act accordingly.

As far as tactics the limited violence that there has been makes it quite difficult to get abortions in some parts of the country. Most Drs. will not do them in their office althought they easily could. So they are confined to clinics where the Drs. wear flak jackets to work. Would you work at an abortion clinic in the deep south? If the violence escalated it would certainly alienate the majority but it would also make it almost impossible to get an abortion in some places.

True. But if things come to that end, then the pro-lifers should become fascists.

NB : because I know things easily go downhill here, I'm not saying pro-lifers are fascists. I'm saying that if the violence by pro-lifers against people wanting or helping abortions gets to the point that these people will be too afraid to pursue their line of jobs or their abortion, even though it's legal, then pro-lifers would become fascists.