Why should pro-choicers think we sincerely think embryos are people?

[womanatwell]

You’re right that it’s complicated. But one of the complicating factors is that some of us don’t consider this a war at all. We’ve come to terms with just living out our lives in peace, while – one by one – hostages are being murdered.

The situation is indeed complicated and you have not touched on all the aspects of the pro-life fight. You started your thread statement talking about embryos, who are recently fertilized and have only a few cells. Embryos have been “created” in in-vitro fertilization clinics and are destroyed and/or kept in suspended states. The fetus is more developed and the victim of abortionists. Some of the strategies to save these individuals would be the same and some different.

The right-to-life movement has made great strides in convincing people that both these stages are fully human. Some work full-time to change attitudes, and thereby the laws of the land. Other people take time and effort to march and keep the issue in the public eye. In this way many persons do give of their lives for the cause.

 

[thistle]

No, I did NOT advocate killing an abortion doctor. That is utterly false.

I said killing an abortionist is not intrinsically wrong.

I might also say that “holding a protest in the middle of a freeway is not intrinsically wrong.” I would not thereby be advocating holding a protest in the middle of a freeway.

How is publicly stating that any different to saying its okay to kill an abortion doctor. People are not stupid. They know what you mean and it can easily be determined from this thread and the other thread.
You are inciting people to violence. Totally against Church teachings. As I said you really need to talk to priest.
I did talk to a priest about what you said (of course I did not name you) and he was horrified that any Catholic could think such a terrible thing.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, I agree with all of this. It doesn’t explain, though, why we wouldn’t do something like a peaceful intifada, which might involve things like sabotage or theft. Of course, we would have to restrict our actions to objects that are instrumental in the actual perpetration of the crimes. But that sounds do-able. What are the chances of success? I’m not sure.

We do not do this because sabotage and theft are immoral, and you cannot commit an immoral act so that good may come of it. This is the same reason we do not kill the abortionists. The state has been given the right to enact the death penalty, individuals have not.

But I do know that being heroic and being persecuted for doing so is one of the most powerful witnesses imaginable. I suspect our becoming more active and consistent on this issue would bring a lot of people to the Church.

The methods of your heroic-ism are very important to the image you want to present. Murdering people in cold blood, however justifiable you may deem it, is not heroic.

I’m not sure. Please to note: I am getting lambasted here on these forums for merely suggesting that – in the ideal situation where it would effectively save a life without bad political consequences – it would be morally permissible to kill an abortionist. Are these the people you think *really believe *that embryos are people? How can one believe that, and be so nice to the abortionist?

We are "nice’ to the abortionist, as you put it, because he is a fallen child of God like the rest of us. We would much rather see him converted than dead. The greatest pro-life activists are those who were involved in abortion directly. Once they understand what it is they’ve been doing, and once they allow the holy Spirit to convict then, they become like Paul, filled with zeal to promote the Truth and make amends for the evil they wrought in the world.

Here’s my comparison. I have friends who don’t eat meat because they “think animals have the same rights as humans.” Whenever they say that, I want to laugh. I mean, come on! If you genuinely thought animals had the same rights as humans, you wouldn’t just not eat meat – you would keep me from eating meat, and you would boycott meat-serving restaurants. These people don’t really believe what they’re saying. Their “moral position” is just an excuse to feel righteous.

I actually agree with this, but it’s not comparable. There’s nothing immoral about boycotting a restaurant; there is something immoral about killing and stealing.

I think some pro-lifers, for whatever reason, either don’t have the courage of their convictions, or aren’t really convinced. This seems like a serious problem, to me.

If pro-life groups started killing abortionists we would lose every last inch of ground we’ve gained over the last few decades. It would cauterize the pro-death groups against us, and unfortunately they currently have the pull of the government, which would ultimately result in our destruction. This would not be the grand, positive witness you seem to think it would, but rather would reinforce the flawed concepts pro-deather’s have of our goals, and provide ample material for us to be forced out and legally condemned. We would continue to resist, of course, as we always have, but to see our numbers drastically decreased through imprisonment or death would do more harm than good.

To cap it off, you cannot commit evil so that good may come of it. Murder is evil no matter how justified we may personally be convinced it is. I think all abortionist should be put to the block, and forced to endure the pain they have wrought on those children they have murdered. I think that would be justice. But justice is not mine to dole out, it is God’s and God’s alone. In spite of my belief that this would be justice, we are called to mercy. If God was just with all of us, we would all be in Hell, plain and simple. Thankfully, he is not; he is merciful, and we are called to be merciful. If the abortionists refuse to repent, then I have no doubt they will endure an eternity of the tortures they inflicting on others. If, however, they repent through our actions and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, imagine the great rejoicing there must be in Heaven for that soul!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

While we can certainly debate whether violence, sabotage, etc., are ever acceptable as a way to advance the pro-life cause, I don’t think this has much to do with whether pro-lifers “sincerely think embryos are people” or not.

The recent race riots are one example; a few zealots have indeed excused these actions as legitimate “self-defense” as well, but the vast majority have not. That doesn’t mean they don’t “sincerely think young black men are people”.

I know a lady who was very angered by the George Zimmerman not guilty verdict, and has been heard to say “It’s only a matter of time before he kills someone else, he thinks he has a license to kill”. I’m sure many others share her sentiments, that Zimmerman both got off for murder and is a threat to others, yet few would seriously consider killing Zimmerman. Again, that doesn’t mean they don’t “sincerely think young black men are people”.

While many people were opposed to the Iraq War, no one in the mainstream ever advocated assassinating George Bush and his cabinet (which would have had to be done, since just offing Bush himself would have done little to change things, with Dick Cheney behind him). That doesn’t mean they don’t “sincerely think the Iraqi are people”.

And I doubt this had anything to do with a pragmatic assessment that “well there’s no point in trying because those people are so well-guarded, it’s almost impossible to get at them”. It was out of a conviction that assassinating government officials, even those contributing to the deaths of others, is just inherently wrong.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Prodigal_Son:

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

There is definitely a discrepancy here. But again, many people talk the talk but do not walk the walk. The discrepancy in your hypothetical question (and it is NOT inciting violence at all, we are merely conducting a peaceful fireside discussion) comes from the doctrine of self-defense. Everyone is permitted to take the necessary steps to defend oneself, and when the only available step is to kill the attacker - then so be it. No sane person will condemn the killing as “murder”. It is a justifiable homicide. Besides, murder is a legal term; it describes an illegal homicide.

Now the situation is a bit more complicated. Killing in defense of others is also permitted. No one would blame you if you used lethal force to protect your child, or family. Now there is the Christian concept of “love your neighbor as yourself”. Naturally it does not speak of your literal neighbor, but about other people, in general. So it is permitted to defend your neighbor, too.

Of course there is a huge caveat here. Killing is only permitted if there is no other alternative. But when you see someone about to perform an abortion, and you are absolutely convinced that there is no other way - then - based upon the doctrine above, you would be justified in preventive killing. What is the problem, then? Maybe, as you say, they do not really consider the zygotes and embryos as “people”. Maybe they understand that no judge or jury will accept their assertion that they used a justifiable force in the protection of “miniscule” people and they do not want to be thrown into prison. And with good reason. Just like most people do not confuse eggs and chicken, or acorns and oak trees, they see the fundamental difference between a fertilized egg and a human being - even though under certain favorable circumstances the egg will grow and become a chicken, the acorn will grow and become an oak tree. As such society does not accept the idea that embryos are “people”, and the protesters understand the futility of fighting for a lost cause when the only outcome is losing their freedom in the process.

So they keep on talking the talk, but refusing to walk the walk. Pretty sensible, I would say.

 

[HelenRose]

I work in philosophy, and – more than once – I’ve heard pro-choice philosophers make the following argument:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing or dying for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

This strikes me as a good argument, so far as it goes. It’s an ad hominem, obviously – it doesn’t prove anything about abortion, only something about people’s beliefs about abortion. But what should we, as pro-lifers, do about it?

Clearly, we think it’s morally permissible to seriously hurt (even kill) another person in order to protect a child from getting killed. Good. But we also claim that a fetus is a child. And yet we loudly insist that it is deeply wrong to hurt – or even sabotage! – abortionists. I don’t get it.

If we believe these are PEOPLE being killed in abortions, then why don’t we start an uprising? I’m serious. Why don’t we break into abortion clinics and steal their equipment? Why don’t we stand in front of abortion clinics and not let people pass? Why don’t we fight like we would fight for our own children, if someone tried to kill THEM?

There may be very good answers to these questions. I certainly don’t advocate hasty actions, and I strongly condemn most attacks on abortion clinics, because they seem to me badly thought-out, ineffective, and politically disastrous. But a sort of “anti-abortion intifada” seems like a logical step. It would show that we put out money where our mouth is.

Am I completely nuts here? I am honestly perplexed by the whole thing.

I am to. I know that abortion is evil. A civilization that ceases to want children, neglects, abuses, uses and aborts children will self-destruct, Abortion is but one symptom and I often wonder where to start.

Christianity has had to deal with state sanctioned evil from the beginning. Early Christians saw slavery, the horrible games played out in coliseums, cruel executions and many other equally evil state sanctioned practices. Christianity has struggled against these practices through the centuries. I believe that the Christians are recognizing that the only real weapon is the changing of hearts and minds. It has never really worked to use force and “intifadas” These methods are the methods that makes the devil dance.

When Christians try using the weapons that the devil so freely offers, we can not win against those who have the greater knowledge in using them. Christians must learn how to use the weapons our merciful God has given us to fight against evil. That is why the statement, “The ends do not justify the means” is a bed rock truth that we must stand on. Christ’s truth, love, compassion, forgiveness and faith are the weapons that we must believe in and learn how to use.

 

[Magdalenaa]

Because what we need to do is to change the hearts of those who don’t think embryos are people.

It is estimated that since 4000 BC until today, thus 6000 years of history, 2.6 billion people died from all wars combined. Since 1980 until today, that is a little over 3 decades, there has been 1.3 billion deaths due to abortion.

What we need to do is like the Jews and early Christians used to do with the baby sacrifices of the pagans. Love those babies and show those with a hard heart the true eternal love of God. Show them that each one of us, them, and the babies inside the womb no matter the stage, are destined for eternal glory in the Trinity. Only life giving love as God loved us into existence, can defeat death.

And to be honest, when an abortion is committed I think it is not the baby who actually dies but those who killed the baby and those who participated in it.

 

[HelenRose]

The argument isn’t only flawed; it’s factually incorrect. The argument was:

1. If pro-lifers genuinely believed that an embryo is a person, then they would consider embryos worth killing – or dying – for.
2. Pro-lifers do not consider embryos worth killing** or dying** for.
3. Therefore, pro-lifers do not believe that embryos are people.

There are pro-life advocates who have died to save the life of an unborn child. Saint Gianna Beretta Molla, for instance, refused both an abortion and a hysterectomy to save the life of her unborn fourth child.

Believing that an embryo’s life is worth killing or dying for, and believing that a given set of circumstances warrants either killing or dying to protect that life are two different things.

 

[HelenRose]

Because what we need to do is to change the hearts of those who don’t think embryos are people.

It is estimated that since 4000 BC until today, thus 6000 years of history, 2.6 billion people died from all wars combined. Since 1980 until today, that is a little over 3 decades, there has been 1.3 billion deaths due to abortion.

What we need to do is like the Jews and early Christians used to do with the baby sacrifices of the pagans. Love those babies and show those with a hard heart the true eternal love of God. Show them that each one of us, them, and the babies inside the womb no matter the stage, are destined for eternal glory in the Trinity. Only life giving love as God loved us into existence, can defeat death.

And to be honest, when an abortion is committed I think it is not the baby who actually dies but those who killed the baby and those who participated in it.

Thanks.

 

[Bradski]

Isn’t this a riff on the ‘fire in the lab’ hypothetical where you personally can save either a hundred embryos or one young girl.

Does anyone want to suggest that they’d save the embryos as opposed to the child? If not (and I sincerely hope you wouldn’t), then what are your reasons for not doing so?

 

[HelenRose]

Isn’t this a riff on the ‘fire in the lab’ hypothetical where you personally can save either a hundred embryos or one young girl.

Does anyone want to suggest that they’d save the embryos as opposed to the child? If not (and I sincerely hope you wouldn’t), then what are your reasons for not doing so?

I really dislike hypothetical questions like that.

If you had to chose Einstein or a retarded child from a burning fire which would you choose. I have heard hypothetical questions like that all my life.

They add nothing to the conversation.

 

[Bradski]

I really dislike hypothetical questions like that.

If you had to chose Einstein or a retarded child from a burning fire which would you choose. I have heard hypothetical questions like that all my life.

They add nothing to the conversation.

Perhaps you dislike them because they are hard to answer. Well, they aren’t meant to be easy. They are meant to be thought provoking.

But the question is a no-brainer. Everyone would choose the child. But to say so reveals a little about the responders attitude to the premise that embryos are people as well.

As to Albert or the kid? Well, my head says Albert but my heart says the kid. I think my heart would win out.

 

[HelenRose]

Perhaps you dislike them because they are hard to answer. Well, they aren’t meant to be easy. They are meant to be thought provoking.

But the question is a no-brainer. Everyone would choose the child. But to say so reveals a little about the responders attitude to the premise that embryos are people as well.

As to Albert or the kid? Well, my head says Albert but my heart says the kid. I think my heart would win out.

My objection to these hypothetical questions is because they do live in the real world. No one knows what one would do in advance. To speculate on them is a waste of time.

For instance: rephrase this. Two children same age, one is obviously brilliant the other is severely handicapped and has a low IQ. You are their parent you have to choose. Which one lives?

 

[Bradski]

My objection to these hypothetical questions is because they do live in the real world. No one knows what one would do in advance. To speculate on them is a waste of time.

For instance: rephrase this. Two children same age, one is obviously brilliant the other is severely handicapped and has a low IQ. You are their parent you have to choose. Which one lives?

Awful choice, but I pick the smart kid. She would have a better chance of a fulfilling life.

So embryos or young girl?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

ProdglArch,

First of all, I want to clarify that you have my position all wrong. This may be my fault, for not making it clear. I think killing abortionists is an AWFUL idea, given the current political climate. But I think killing an abortionist, in theory, could be just as justifiable as killing the guard who is about to start the gas chambers at a concentration camp – if the conditions were such that you would GENUINELY SAVE INNOCENT LIVES by killing that guard (and if there were no less harmful options).

In the concentration camp case, Catholic teaching is that such a killing is not murder, and is not wrong. This is because of the principle of double effect – which seems to also apply in a case where you can prevent an abortionist from committing an abortion (and permanently save the child’s life), but only by killing the abortionist.

Similarly, sabotage and theft can be justified by Catholic teaching, in cases where double effect applies. It might apply here, since the things we would be sabotaging are the instruments of murder.

The state has been given the right to enact the death penalty, individuals have not.

Killing in defense of the innocent is not a penalty. Neither is killing in self-defense.

The methods of your heroic-ism are very important to the image you want to present.

I agree that this is very important. And you’re totally right that winning hearts and minds is the goal. But consider – sometimes PASSION wins hearts and minds. I, for one, was very happy with Lila Rose’s infiltration techniques. She showed passion for the good, and I think it helped others see more starkly how important it is to FIGHT this battle.

We are "nice’ to the abortionist, as you put it, because he is a fallen child of God like the rest of us. We would much rather see him converted than dead.

I agree, 100%. I am not a better person than abortionists, and I very much long for their conversion. But again, I’m talking about saving an innocent life, not killing a person as some sort of punishment.

The greatest pro-life activists are those who were involved in abortion directly. Once they understand what it is they’ve been doing, and once they allow the holy Spirit to convict then, they become like Paul, filled with zeal to promote the Truth and make amends for the evil they wrought in the world.

Absolutely!

If pro-life groups started killing abortionists we would lose every last inch of ground we’ve gained over the last few decades. It would cauterize the pro-death groups against us, and unfortunately they currently have the pull of the government, which would ultimately result in our destruction. This would not be the grand, positive witness you seem to think it would, but rather would reinforce the flawed concepts pro-deather’s have of our goals, and provide ample material for us to be forced out and legally condemned. We would continue to resist, of course, as we always have, but to see our numbers drastically decreased through imprisonment or death would do more harm than good.

This is where you misunderstood me. I agree with you that killing abortionists, given the current situation, is an awful idea.

To cap it off, you cannot commit evil so that good may come of it.

Saving an innocent life by killing a would-be murderer is not evil.

Murder is evil no matter how justified we may personally be convinced it is.

Are you a pacifist? Is killing in war ever justified?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I did talk to a priest about what you said (of course I did not name you) and he was horrified that any Catholic could think such a terrible thing.

What did you tell him I said?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is definitely a discrepancy here. But again, many people talk the talk but do not walk the walk. The discrepancy in your hypothetical question (and it is NOT inciting violence at all, we are merely conducting a peaceful fireside discussion) comes from the doctrine of self-defense. Everyone is permitted to take the necessary steps to defend oneself, and when the only available step is to kill the attacker - then so be it. No sane person will condemn the killing as “murder”. It is a justifiable homicide. Besides, murder is a legal term; it describes an illegal homicide.

Now the situation is a bit more complicated. Killing in defense of others is also permitted. No one would blame you if you used lethal force to protect your child, or family. Now there is the Christian concept of “love your neighbor as yourself”. Naturally it does not speak of your literal neighbor, but about other people, in general. So it is permitted to defend your neighbor, too.

Of course there is a huge caveat here. Killing is only permitted if there is no other alternative. But when you see someone about to perform an abortion, and you are absolutely convinced that there is no other way - then - based upon the doctrine above, you would be justified in preventive killing. What is the problem, then? Maybe, as you say, they do not really consider the zygotes and embryos as “people”. Maybe they understand that no judge or jury will accept their assertion that they used a justifiable force in the protection of “miniscule” people and they do not want to be thrown into prison. And with good reason. Just like most people do not confuse eggs and chicken, or acorns and oak trees, they see the fundamental difference between a fertilized egg and a human being - even though under certain favorable circumstances the egg will grow and become a chicken, the acorn will grow and become an oak tree. As such society does not accept the idea that embryos are “people”, and the protesters understand the futility of fighting for a lost cause when the only outcome is losing their freedom in the process.

So they keep on talking the talk, but refusing to walk the walk. Pretty sensible, I would say.

(1) Are you familiar with the level of development most fetuses are at when the majority of abortions occur? They are not “fertilized eggs”. They have a head, arms and legs, a heart, a brain, and so on. They are most likely capable of feeling pain. They move on their own.

(2) In your opinion, is it permissible to kill a premature baby? Why or why not?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The right-to-life movement has made great strides in convincing people that both these stages are fully human. Some work full-time to change attitudes, and thereby the laws of the land. Other people take time and effort to march and keep the issue in the public eye. In this way many persons do give of their lives for the cause.

Good point. I agree that many people are giving their lives to this cause.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think in most circumstances, it is unthinkable.

The difficulty is that you are talking about perpetrating one moral wrong to prevent another; the circumstances have to be very narrow for that to be just under Catholic social doctrine (essentially paralleling the “just war” doctrine). I really can’t imagine a situation where it would be morally acceptable to kill a single person where the effect would be negligible in the ability to save the lives under attack.

I agree that the situation would have to be a very specific one. But I think such a situation is conceivable.

If we were talking about murdering Hitler in 1941 as the Holocaust was beginning because the murderer knew what his overall plans were for the Jews, that would be different, but there is no parallel situation with respect to abortionists. Murdering a single abortionist does nothing to prevent the death of the lives in question (as there are plenty of other abortionists available) and causes far more harm to the pro-life movement by alienating moderates who would see such action as too extreme.

I agree with all this.

But, your proposition was that there was a logical flaw in the pro-life position.

No, it wasn’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I know a lady who was very angered by the George Zimmerman not guilty verdict, and has been heard to say “It’s only a matter of time before he kills someone else, he thinks he has a license to kill”. I’m sure many others share her sentiments, that Zimmerman both got off for murder and is a threat to others, yet few would seriously consider killing Zimmerman.

But they WOULD consider killing Zimmerman if Zimmerman had a gun to the head of a young black man! That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about.