4 ms·

Exactly this, a hundred times. Their actions betray them. If they actually thought there were half a million babies being murdered every year, tens of millions

Exactly this, a hundred times. Their actions betray them. If they actually thought there were half a million babies being murdered every year, tens of millions since Roe, they would have done something actively to stop it. If there were 500,000 five-year-old kids being murdered every year, with the explicit approval of the government, there would be a civil war. The fact that the overwhelming majority do not do anything is proof positive that they do not believe abortion is equivalent to murder. You can't simply claim, oh, I believe in democracy, or I believe in the rule of law in the face of a government that actively murders hundreds of thousands of children. No one has such a deep attachment to the rule of law for its sake as to tolerate 500,000 explicitly-legal child murders.

jklinger410 4y ago
I think they are just very stupid, and lying to themselves. But this is such a deep stupidity, you can't just say their beliefs aren't real. If this belief of theirs isn't real, none of them are. Which I think is actually true. They believe in nothing.
peteradio 4y ago
> No one has such a deep attachment to the rule of law for its sake as to tolerate 500,000 explicitly-legal child murders. That's where you are wrong. What action exactly are you looking for that would make you respect their beliefs? Apparently its outside the law.
- jlmorton 4y ago
  Any political system that allows for the murder of half a million five year old children is very obviously not legitimate. If ever there were a justification for outright civil war, this would be it. It doesn't matter one bit whether it's a democracy, or the will of the majority. Any argument otherwise could equally justify any genocide.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    If you really believe abortion is murder, you must believe that spontaneous miscarriage is the leading cause of death in the US, beating heart disease in #2 by a factor of 5. Where is the investment from religious fundamentalists in preventing spontaneous miscarriage?
    - jlmorton 4y ago
      Great point!
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  Yes, I think that was the point. If people genuinely believed that abortion is the same as murder, they would have revolted against the government a long time ago. They don't really believe it. What they do believe, however, is that any woman who may need an abortion was being promiscuous, and should be punished for her actions. They absolutely believe that.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> If there were 500,000 five-year-old kids being murdered every year, with the explicit approval of the government, there would be a civil war. Precisely this -> It is a common technique that someone believes in Position A because of reason X, but reason X is unacceptable to the wider society and won't win debates. You make up reason Y to rationalise your Position A. Peole will debate you on reason Y and be wondering why they can't convince you despite demonstrating that reason Y is wrong. They can;t convince you because you don't care about Reason Y, it's just a ruse. Often your followers also know that reason Y is a ruse, at least the ones who are not totally stupid. In the Brexit debate, you would have people claiming that it's about national sovereignty and 'all them bloody EU laws', but they wouldn't be able to name a single EU law. They never knew and cared about EU law, they had a problem with immigration. If at least the country was discussing immigration, maybe they could discuss if it's cheaper to give some extra money to people who are affected by immigration or suffer the collateral damage of Brexit.
svieira 4y ago
> If they actually thought there were half a million babies being murdered every year, tens of millions since Roe, they would have done something actively to stop it. By that argument, no abolitionist except for John Brown actually believed that chattel slavery was wrong. No suffragettes except the anarchists actually believed that women should have the right to vote. No blacks in the USA in the 1960s actually believed they were equal in dignity with their white brothers. Non-violent responses to violent outrages are a very Christian approach to the problems of evil. That doesn't mean there's no suffering involved. Pro-life activists are regularly arrested, assaulted, battered, and insulted. Pro-life organizations spend millions of dollars (gifted in charity by hundreds of thousands of pro-life people) every year helping woman who find themselves in difficult positions choose life and give their children a better life after birth. Time and treasure poured out for a cause are a better measure of the importance of a cause that the total weight of bullets expended in overcoming the other side.
- jlmorton 4y ago
  That's not remotely true. There were several million people involved in active efforts to undermine and end slavery through direct action, including through actions like the Underground Railroad, rebellions like Stono, and of course it ultimately did lead directly to civil war.
  - svieira 4y ago
    There's been plenty of direct action by pro-life people that wasn't violent ranging from prayer vigils / sit-ins / Red Rose Rescue through to pregnancy centers and education. The side that triggered the Civil War was the side that was in the wrong, so I'm not sure what truth you are pointing to there.
    - jlmorton 4y ago
      Note that I do not claim that pro-life activists have no serious moral aversion to abortion. I believe that they do. I think pro-life activists believe unborn fetuses have certain rights worthy of protection. However, their rhetoric goes much further than that. Their rhetoric says that abortion is equivalent to murder, and thus justifies curtailing inalienable rights held by women. The right of self-defense of others is something very close to universally accepted. If there were an equivalent number of five year old kids being aborted, we would not see milquetoast efforts like sit-ins and prayer vigils, actions with both little consequence and impact. I believe Eric Rudolph believed abortion is murder. But all those people at prayer vigils, sit-ins, Red Rose Rescue, and pregnancy centers do not. They see it as something bad, but less than murder. If a half million five year old kids are being murdered, you can't just go about your life and attend an annual March for Life protest. What kind of a person doesn't do more? This is systematic, legal, mass-scale child murder we're talking about.

jklinger410 4y ago

I think they are just very stupid, and lying to themselves. But this is such a deep stupidity, you can't just say their beliefs aren't real. If this belief of theirs isn't real, none of them are. Which I think is actually true. They believe in nothing.

peteradio 4y ago

> No one has such a deep attachment to the rule of law for its sake as to tolerate 500,000 explicitly-legal child murders. That's where you are wrong. What action exactly are you looking for that would make you respect their beliefs? Apparently its outside the law.

jlmorton 4y ago
Any political system that allows for the murder of half a million five year old children is very obviously not legitimate. If ever there were a justification for outright civil war, this would be it. It doesn't matter one bit whether it's a democracy, or the will of the majority. Any argument otherwise could equally justify any genocide.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  If you really believe abortion is murder, you must believe that spontaneous miscarriage is the leading cause of death in the US, beating heart disease in #2 by a factor of 5. Where is the investment from religious fundamentalists in preventing spontaneous miscarriage?
  - jlmorton 4y ago
    Great point!
SantalBlush 4y ago
Yes, I think that was the point. If people genuinely believed that abortion is the same as murder, they would have revolted against the government a long time ago. They don't really believe it. What they do believe, however, is that any woman who may need an abortion was being promiscuous, and should be punished for her actions. They absolutely believe that.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> If there were 500,000 five-year-old kids being murdered every year, with the explicit approval of the government, there would be a civil war. Precisely this -> It is a common technique that someone believes in Position A because of reason X, but reason X is unacceptable to the wider society and won't win debates. You make up reason Y to rationalise your Position A. Peole will debate you on reason Y and be wondering why they can't convince you despite demonstrating that reason Y is wrong. They can;t convince you because you don't care about Reason Y, it's just a ruse. Often your followers also know that reason Y is a ruse, at least the ones who are not totally stupid. In the Brexit debate, you would have people claiming that it's about national sovereignty and 'all them bloody EU laws', but they wouldn't be able to name a single EU law. They never knew and cared about EU law, they had a problem with immigration. If at least the country was discussing immigration, maybe they could discuss if it's cheaper to give some extra money to people who are affected by immigration or suffer the collateral damage of Brexit.

svieira 4y ago

> If they actually thought there were half a million babies being murdered every year, tens of millions since Roe, they would have done something actively to stop it. By that argument, no abolitionist except for John Brown actually believed that chattel slavery was wrong. No suffragettes except the anarchists actually believed that women should have the right to vote. No blacks in the USA in the 1960s actually believed they were equal in dignity with their white brothers. Non-violent responses to violent outrages are a very Christian approach to the problems of evil. That doesn't mean there's no suffering involved. Pro-life activists are regularly arrested, assaulted, battered, and insulted. Pro-life organizations spend millions of dollars (gifted in charity by hundreds of thousands of pro-life people) every year helping woman who find themselves in difficult positions choose life and give their children a better life after birth. Time and treasure poured out for a cause are a better measure of the importance of a cause that the total weight of bullets expended in overcoming the other side.

jlmorton 4y ago
That's not remotely true. There were several million people involved in active efforts to undermine and end slavery through direct action, including through actions like the Underground Railroad, rebellions like Stono, and of course it ultimately did lead directly to civil war.
- svieira 4y ago
  There's been plenty of direct action by pro-life people that wasn't violent ranging from prayer vigils / sit-ins / Red Rose Rescue through to pregnancy centers and education. The side that triggered the Civil War was the side that was in the wrong, so I'm not sure what truth you are pointing to there.
  - jlmorton 4y ago
    Note that I do not claim that pro-life activists have no serious moral aversion to abortion. I believe that they do. I think pro-life activists believe unborn fetuses have certain rights worthy of protection. However, their rhetoric goes much further than that. Their rhetoric says that abortion is equivalent to murder, and thus justifies curtailing inalienable rights held by women. The right of self-defense of others is something very close to universally accepted. If there were an equivalent number of five year old kids being aborted, we would not see milquetoast efforts like sit-ins and prayer vigils, actions with both little consequence and impact. I believe Eric Rudolph believed abortion is murder. But all those people at prayer vigils, sit-ins, Red Rose Rescue, and pregnancy centers do not. They see it as something bad, but less than murder. If a half million five year old kids are being murdered, you can't just go about your life and attend an annual March for Life protest. What kind of a person doesn't do more? This is systematic, legal, mass-scale child murder we're talking about.