Smoke[MaxX]
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 91
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Posted this in another thread, but I thought it'd be more appropriate here:
Aside from the obvious differences between what an unborn fetus should have...
Is there or is there NOT a pretty significant difference between the rape and murder of an 8 month old and legal optional choice of a woman to abort her fetus.
I mean, besides the fact that, oh I don't know- one was definitely alive and the other could still have been stillborn. Besides the fact that one was legal and the other was illegal. Besides the fact that one had rape involved and the other didn't. Besides the fact that Rapist/Murderer A chose to end the life of a toddler and Doctor B did what he was legally obligated to do and what Paying Customer C paid him to do (this is a capitalistic society right?).
I don't understand why Doctor B should be justifiably murdered even though he wouldn't be "murdering fetuses" without the consent of Paying Customer C. I don't really think he enjoys "murdering fetuses" but we all do work our jobs to get money right? Why should Tiller be the target of violence when he's doing what is legally his right to do? Why shouldn't these insane psychopath confused Pro-life (irony?) murderers go after the women who choose to have the abortions? Why don't they use the same scare tactics on them?
Can we agree that, if ANYBODY (which I don't agree with, as I'm pro-choice) is to be morally blameworthy for these actions, shouldn't it be the women who make the decisions to go see the big bad abortion doctors? Also, if the Tiller killer instead killed the women who went to go see Tiller, would he be getting as much support from some pro-lifers as he is now?
Would any pro-lifers actually like to respond to this? The only two responses involved derailing the entire point of my post to avoid answering the questions I asked.