The difference is that when a "pro-life" advocate kills someone their actions prove that they are not authentically pro-life. It's kind of like a vegetarian who eats hamburgers.
On the other hand, when a pro-choice advocate murders a disabled man like today, they're just doing what they always do. It's just that this time their victim is older than usual.
54 comments
At least tell us what your corroborating evidence (i.e. OUTSIDE the Bible) for the soul being there on conception is, rather than when brain waves can first be detected. Besides, considering that the penalty in the Tanakh for causing an abortion against the mother's will better matched that for second degree manslaughter than first degree murder, I'm not so sure your lawgiver really agrees with you about abortion being a subset of murder.
And if this is about euthanasia...er, is suicide necessarily quite the sin you think it is? I'm presuming that the person in question went through plenty of counseling first...
It's not a No True Scotsman, guys.
RationalWiki sayeth unto us : "Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires ("no honest man would lie like that!"). " And, uh, they're right, and applicable here. Being pro-life means opposing murder, so murderers are not pro-life.
On the other hand:
1) Kat is right; someone who's pro-death penalty is not truly pro-life.
2) The second half of Lou's post is moronic. A clump of cells with no functioning brain is not alive; the analogy is false.
(Edited to clarify.)
As usual, most of the comments are just as moronic as the quote.
I guess being an idiot isn't a fundie thing, it's just a human thing.
Yeah Anon above me, grab that moral high ground! I mean fundies aren't human at all duh!
Seriously though if you are surprised to find stupid comments anywhere on the internet then you are indeed quite the naive fool.
Interesting point.
When the principle of pro-life places the mother at risk, and effecftively kills her, does that negate the stance of pro-life?
(to my understanding most are more than happy to let the mother die in favour of the unborn. However, that still violates the principles of pro-life)
Near as I can tell most pro-choicers condemned that murder, I know I did. And to the best of my knowledge, this is the only known murder of a pro-lifer for his stance. Most pro-choicers I know condemn violence in any way shape or form.
Whereas many "pro-lifers" were dancing in the street after Tiller's murder, as well as other doctor's murders and clinic bombings, advocate killing women who have had abortions, and love to use the term "justifiable homicide".
Surely, unless the victim chose to be murdered, a murdering "pro-choicer" is no more pro-choice than a murdering "pro-lifer" is pro-life?
Jeesy Creesy, if you have to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, can you at least get it right?
@Wehpudicabok
@Wehpudicabok: True, but when half of pro-lifers seem to support the murder of doctors, escorts, and anyone else even remotely associated with abortion, Lou's message falls somewhat flat.
You are right, even if it does also mean that so many "pro-lifers" aren't. Not that that's anything new.
@David B.: Win. An internets for you, sir.
When my mother was pregnant with my sibling, her doctor told her that if medical complications arose during the pregnancy, his priority would be to save the fetus, not her. How the fuck is that "pro-life"? I'm really sick of that term for these hypocrites.
And my mom got herself a new doctor.
The first paragraph made me think Lou had some hope. He seemed to clearly recognize the hypocrisy of someone killing Tiller, or bombing an abortion clinic, "out of respect for life."
Then the second paragraph blew this theory all to hell.
"The difference is that when a "pro-life" advocate kills someone their actions prove that they are not authentically pro-life. It's kind of like a vegetarian who eats hamburgers. "
How about when they enthusiastically promote the death penalty? Does that make them not authentic?
How about when they support government health care for poor children? Is that what they always do?
Well, I guess that makes me pro-choice, because when I say, "You should kill yourself", I really mean it. I believe you have the right. Of course, the choice is yours and I'm really just trying to kick-start your brain into realizing that you should choose for yourself and not be a blind follower.
My personal beliefs do not make me a constant murderer however, so your argument fails.
Ahh, yes, because you know pro-choicers are all about the killing! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!! (wipes bloody hands on face)
Then of course there was all the rejoicing of the so-called "pro-life" community over Dr. Tiller's murder.
To be truly pro-life, you must also be pro-universal health care, anti-war, and want to end the death penalty. Can you claim devotion to any of those causes?
I'm pro-choice. I'm for abortion (with sensible limits), assisted suicide (for terminal cases with no cognitive impairment), and euthanasia (for brain-dead individuals with no prospects of recovery). Moreover, I believe allowing these will be of great benefit to society rather than a detriment. These people would bust a blood vessel if they tried to talk to me. I'm surprised if they don't start frothing at the mouth just from reading this.
On the other hand, when a pro-choice advocate murders a disabled man like today, they're just doing what they always do. It's just that this time their victim is older than usual.
It was all going so well until that point.
FOR CONTEXT:
Here's the murder that Lou is talking about:http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=678960
(The article is a notoriously biased source, but the facts in that article are probably correct.)
Note that the motivation of the shooter has not yet been ascertained, and that the suspected killer also admitted to an unrelated murder earlier the same day of a man who had no connection with the abortion issue one way or the other. We don't even know if the killer was pro-choice or not!
EDIT: The suspected killer is apparently not sane enough to stand trial:http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/62931697.html
Dr. Tiller was killed BECAUSE he provided abortions. Random murder that happened to be committed by a person on one side=/=murder committed IN THE NAME OF one.
But then again, as far as I'm concerned, any "pro-lifer" who isn't against war is only slightly less of a hypocrite, and we're swarming with that kind. Sorry guys, but you can't be pro-life for unborn Americans and pro-death for born Iraqis.
So, when someone who is "pro-life" advocates war, does that mean they are not authentically pro-life? Or are the unborn babies the only people that matter? Foreigners, homosexuals, atheists, heathens, they're all just fodder. If you have more concern for that which does not yet have life, over that which does have life, you are NOT pro-life.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
