MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
No, this discussion is not about abortion.
Here's the OP:
Pro-choice is a deceptive term used by abortion supporters to reframe the killing of unborn babies as an individual right.
People who identify as pro-choice typically vote for left-leaning political parties that want to implement high taxes on people who make good money. To force a successful person to hand over 50% or 60% of his salary to the government is very anti-choice. People should have the right to choose what they do with their own money without the government confiscating most of it.
Why do pro-choice believers say that women have a right to choose an abortion, but think that rich people should not have the right to choose what to do with most of their money? If the pro-choice crowd were honest, their views on choice would be consistent. But they are far from consistent.
Sure looks to me like the discussion was meant to primarily be about abortion.
For let's be clear, if legally the killing of a baby in the womb is the intentional slaying of a human being, then therefore the mother, the doctor and the attending nurses are all first degree murderers who, in the states who have those laws, should all be put to death, and everybody who works in the office, or finances the abortion, is likewise an accessory to first degree murder - and guilty of felony murder, just like the getaway driver from a robbery gone bad is charged with felony murder even if he sat in the car and waited and never drew a gun.
Shall we, then, apply our law of murder to abortion, given that it is murder, and execute everybody affiliated with the abortion clinics, and all mothers who procure one, and all boyfriends who pay for it?
Logically, we must.
Which is why, when we come to matters of life, there are no lines - well, this is abortion, so that's different.
If it's different, then we must acknowledge it.
But if it's not, then that means many other things also.
It's easy to condemn people morally for the crime of abortion. Are we willing to execute everybody involved in the process, including the mother, all of the doctors, nurses, payors and secretarial staff? We executed prison guards at Auschwitz. The secretary sitting out front taking calls is as worthy as a noose as a train guard at a death camp. No difference.
Right?
This is a rather disingenuous line of argument to take when in your post immediately before this you said that we said that we should question whether the death penalty should be employed for any reason whatsoever (due to the state of justice in our society). If you aren't a fervent supporter of the death penalty, why would you claim that it is a necessary logical consequence of abortion being murder that we must execute every single person involved in the process? Even if you were a fervent supporter of the death penalty that would still be quite a leap, but if you don't support it generally the argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Thus we can conclude that you are aware that the argument you said does not necessarily follow. So why would you make it? The only motivation I can see is that you are hoping that the conclusion will be a bit too much for pro-life people to swallow, and as such they might decide that they are okay with babies being killed after all. Of course, the other option is for them to see that the fact that something is wrong does not mean that we automatically execute everyone even remotely connected to it (seeing as how we don't do that for any other offense).
Upvote
0