planned parenthood

[MercyPercy]

How does one come to that conclusion?

I think it's fairly simple. Assuming you believe life begins at conception, and that abortions are murder:

1. Do you feel that one is justified in killing murderers?

Assuming yes, then you can justify killing a doctor who performs abortions because they are murderers.

2. Do you feel that one has a moral obligation to kill murderers in order to prevent more murders?

Assuming yes, then you must feel morally obligated to kill doctors who perform abortions because you are preventing more murders; at the very least you should support those actions. Bombing abortion clinics is a method that is internally consistent with your moral obligation.

3. Do you feel that one who voluntarily aids murderers in their task counts as a murderer?

Assuming yes, then the nurses, custodians, etc in abortion clinics deserve to be murdered as well because they share culpability with the doctor.

4. Do you feel that custodians and admin personnel that work at Planned Parenthood voluntarily aid the murderers in the murderers' task?

Assuming yes, then the all employees of Planned Parenthood should be murdered to prevent the murders which you believe they will commit.

 

[Obsessed]

I think it's fairly simple. Assuming you believe life begins at conception, and that abortions are murder:



Assuming yes, then you can justify killing a doctor who performs abortions because they are murderers.



Assuming yes, then you must feel morally obligated to kill doctors who perform abortions because you are preventing more murders; at the very least you should support those actions. Bombing abortion clinics is a method that is internally consistent with your moral obligation.



Assuming yes, then the nurses, custodians, etc in abortion clinics deserve to be murdered as well because they share culpability with the doctor.



Assuming yes, then the all employees of Planned Parenthood should be murdered to prevent the murders which you believe they will commit.

Yes. With in the confines of the law.

 

[MercyPercy]

Yes. With in the confines of the law.

Moral justification =/= lawful justification. Within the confines of the law, Paul Jennings Hill is a murderer with no lawful justification. Within the confines of your morality, his actions were justifiable. So really, what you are saying is that you believe abortion doctors(and all of Planned Parenthood, I guess) should be sentenced to death by a court of law. And therefor, your only contention with Paul Jennings Hill or an abortion clinic bomber is that they took the law into their own hands, but were morally justified in doing so.

 

[Obsessed]

Moral justification =/= lawful justification. Within the confines of the law, Paul Jennings Hill is a murderer with no lawful justification. Within the confines of your morality, his actions were justifiable. So really, what you are saying is that you believe abortion doctors(and all of Planned Parenthood, I guess) should be sentenced to death by a court of law. And therefor, your only contention with Paul Jennings Hill or an abortion clinic bomber is that they took the law into their own hands, but were morally justified in doing so.

Nope. They broke the law as well. Kill them too.

Quit trying to twist it mercy. My stance is clear.

 

[therealUT]

How does one come to that conclusion?

i answered yes to actions be murderous and held accountable to the law. (In my world)

How do you then tie me to bombing abortion clinics. Those actions I do not codone as well.

Murder is murder. I am of the belief that life begins at conception.

"Yes" is ought to be killed. I mentioned nothing regarding law. "Ought" implies a duty. Thus, there is a duty to kill those persons. You either carry it out or you don't.

 

[MercyPercy]

Nope. They broke the law as well. Kill them too.

Quit trying to twist it mercy. My stance is clear.

I'm not twisting anything. You said all of Planned Parenthood should be killed, as it is a moral obligation.

 

[Obsessed]

I'm not twisting anything. You said all of Planned Parenthood should be killed, as it is a moral obligation.

I inferred the "law" was in play. He did not include that in the equation. That part was an assumption on my behalf. If the "law" was in the equation then my opinion is still the same.

 

[MercyPercy]

I inferred the "law" was in play. He did not include that in the equation. That part was an assumption on my behalf. If the "law" was in the equation then my opinion is still the same.

Whether or not you feel like someone has operated within the confines of the law is honestly irrelevant to whether you feel like someone was morally justified in their actions. For example, you might feel like a man who avenges the brutal murder of his daughters by killing the offender was morally justified in his actions. You might feel like that man does not deserve to be put to death for his unlawful actions, though the law says he does. If you might be willing to pardon the man in this scenario for a crime in which you feel he was morally justified, why would you not be willing to pardon an abortion clinic bomber who you feel was morally justified?

 

[distrovol]

Whether or not you feel like someone has operated within the confines of the law is honestly irrelevant to whether you feel like someone was morally justified in their actions. For example, you might feel like a man who avenges the brutal murder of his daughters by killing the offender was morally justified in his actions. You might feel like that man does not deserve to be put to death for his unlawful actions, though the law says he does. If you might be willing to pardon the man in this scenario for a crime in which you feel he was morally justified, why would you not be willing to pardon an abortion clinic bomber who you feel was morally justified?

Because 2 wrongs do not make a right. It may seem to be contradictory that one would be in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes but against killing abortion doctors, but that is the limits of philosophy and "reason". Everything in academia can fit into a nice little box and all the problems solvable. Real life is contradictory and no person is perfect in their rationale every time.

 

[therealUT]

[/B]

Because 2 wrongs do not make a right. It may seem to be contradictory that one would be in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes but against killing abortion doctors, but that is the limits of philosophy and "reason". Everything in academia can fit into a nice little box and all the problems solvable. Real life is contradictory and no person is perfect in their rationale every time.

Real life is not contradictory. If it appears as such, it means we are lacking insight. The world is logical. To think otherwise is insanity. But, even the insane's movements are dictated and confined by logic.

The limit of philosophy is not what you seem to think (I.e., that logic doesn't apply to the world); the limit is epistemic access. These questions don't face such a problem, thus, one who answers "yes" to all four gets the answer I've provided.

There is one philosopher I know if who explicitly takes and advocates this position, yet he thinks the admin and custodial personnel at such facilities do not genuinely volunteer to work there, thus, while it would be right to bomb abortion clinics if all genuinely volunteered to be there, it would be wrong to kill the custodians.

This philosopher works at Notre Dame. He's a devout Catholic. He teaches his philosophy to Notre Dame students every year. His name is John Finnis. Feel free to pick up his books. Feel free to understand that the only thing that keeps him from being a bomber is his answer to question 3.

 

[distrovol]

Real life is not contradictory. If it appears as such, it means we are lacking insight. The world is logical. To think otherwise is insanity. But, even the insane's movements are dictated and confined by logic.

The limit of philosophy is not what you seem to think (I.e., that logic doesn't apply to the world); the limit is epistemic access. These questions don't face such a problem, thus, one who answers "yes" to all four gets the answer I've provided.

There is one philosopher I know if who explicitly takes and advocates this position, yet he thinks the admin and custodial personnel at such facilities do not genuinely volunteer to work there, thus, while it would be right to bomb abortion clinics if all genuinely volunteered to be there, it would be wrong to kill the custodians.

This philosopher works at Notre Dame. He's a devout Catholic. He teaches his philosophy to Notre Dame students every year. His name is John Finnis. Feel free to pick up his books. Feel free to understand that the only thing that keeps him from being a bomber is his answer to question 3.

I do believe logic applies to the real world, but it has its limits by the external variables in the real world that are absent in an academic setting (event "A" leads to event "B" which gives outcome "C"). In my view, if one answers the questions you pose there is a predetermined answer in how the questions are crafted. Life usually does not throw problems at you in such a way. Again, no one is immune from flawed logic and reason.

I appreciate the tip on Mr. Finnis. I will check him out. Have you ever read or seen any of John Lennox's work? Love that guy.

 

[MercyPercy]

[/B]

Because 2 wrongs do not make a right. It may seem to be contradictory that one would be in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes but against killing abortion doctors, but that is the limits of philosophy and "reason". Everything in academia can fit into a nice little box and all the problems solvable. Real life is contradictory and no person is perfect in their rationale every time.

How could it be wrong if you think it was morally justified? That's pretty much how we determine right or wrong, we use our own personal morality.

 

[distrovol]

I do not think the abortion doctor killer is morally justified in what he is doing. He should face the same consequences as any other murderer.

Like most of these very dicey issues, the deal-breaker for me is motivations. If a life is taken from an evil person to preserve future life then it is just, if no then it is not. I don't put the doctor murderer in that category because he is acting out of vengeance (debatable, of course). BTW, doesn't a "doctor" take an oath of "do no harm"?

I will be the first to admit my grappling with being pro- life and (in theory) pro death penalty. DP isn't justly applied, IMO.

 

[therealUT]

I do not think the abortion doctor killer is morally justified in what he is doing. He should face the same consequences as any other murderer.

Like most of these very dicey issues, the deal-breaker for me is motivations. If a life is taken from an evil person to preserve future life then it is just, if no then it is not. I don't put the doctor murderer in that category because he is acting out of vengeance (debatable, of course). BTW, doesn't a "doctor" take an oath of "do no harm"?

I will be the first to admit my grappling with being pro- life and (in theory) pro death penalty. DP isn't justly applied, IMO.

Nobody said anything about "vengeance". The bombing of an abortion clinic prevents some abortions in the future, yes? One who thinks abortion is murder must think an abortion provider is a murderer. So, it's killing a murderer to prevent future murders.

 

[distrovol]

Nobody said anything about "vengeance". The bombing of an abortion clinic prevents some abortions in the future, yes? One who thinks abortion is murder must think an abortion provider is a murderer. So, it's killing a murderer to prevent future murders.

I'm sure that is the reason he would give, it makes it morally palatable. It's just as plausable he murders to avenge past abortions. We are both speculating on a crazy persons motivations.

 

[therealUT]

I'm sure that is the reason he would give, it makes it morally palatable. It's just as plausable he murders to avenge past abortions. We are both speculating on a crazy persons motivations.

Not crazy, absolutely sane and rational.

 

[keithpowers]

Nobody said anything about "vengeance". The bombing of an abortion clinic prevents some abortions in the future, yes? One who thinks abortion is murder must think an abortion provider is a murderer. So, it's killing a murderer to prevent future murders.

The bombing of an abortion clinic proves that "pro-life" values a zygote more than a human female.

If these unwanted pregnancies are carried to term, who pays the social cost (childcare, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare) when our budget goes towards killing people on the other side of the world (so that KBR and Halliburton can issue a dividend to shareholders)?

The best argument I ever heard for a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term came from "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, in "The Ethics of Liberty", chapter 14, "On Children".
If you agree that a woman's body is her property, it is entirely her decision as to whether she allow a pregnancy to occupy said property. Until about 24-25 weeks gestation, these fetuses are not independently viable, i.e., they cannot live on their own because of their underdeveloped vital organs.

The "miracle of life" concept is a sham, perpetrated by the religious right; The basic biological function of all living things is to reproduce, and to die shortly thereafter, in order to reduce competition for one's progeny.

If there is a miracle of life, it's the fact that sex doesn't result in pregnancy every time a fertile egg encounters a cloud of 250,000,000 sperm.

 

[therealUT]

Can always bomb after hours and/or follow the workers home...

 

[Carl Pickens]

The bombing of an abortion clinic proves that "pro-life" values a zygote more than a human female.

If these unwanted pregnancies are carried to term, who pays the social cost (childcare, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare) when our budget goes towards killing people on the other side of the world (so that KBR and Halliburton can issue a dividend to shareholders)?

The best argument I ever heard for a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term came from "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, in "The Ethics of Liberty", chapter 14, "On Children".
If you agree that a woman's body is her property, it is entirely her decision as to whether she allow a pregnancy to occupy said property. Until about 24-25 weeks gestation, these fetuses are not independently viable, i.e., they cannot live on their own because of their underdeveloped vital organs.

The "miracle of life" concept is a sham, perpetrated by the religious right; The basic biological function of all living things is to reproduce, and to die shortly thereafter, in order to reduce competition for one's progeny.

If there is a miracle of life, it's the fact that sex doesn't result in pregnancy every time a fertile egg encounters a cloud of 250,000,000 sperm.

Dr. Reproduction I presume.....

 

[golfballs]

What a brave little clump of cells

[twitter]https://twitter.com/cnnhealth/status/928281823980990464[/twitter]

 

[Biopsyman]

Don’t know a single person who ever has used or considered planned Parenthood

 

[n_huffhines]

Don’t know a single person who ever has used or considered planned Parenthood

Yeah you do

 

[Biopsyman]

Yeah you do

No I don’t

 

[armchair]

Women should be free to make their own life decisions, which includes reproductive decisions. They don't need the American Taliban--often old white men in state legislatures or Congress--trying to force their morality on them, that's for damn sure.

And let's be clear about what these christian zealots and conservatives are all about. They want to force women--often young, uneducated women with little money and sketchy prospects-- to have babies that, in many cases, they are not in a position to raise properly. The kids are born into bad, dysfunctional families, often with no fathers. They have problems in life. Many of them end up in foster care or migrate to the street, and then find themselves in prison.

So the conservative politicians and moral zealots want to force women to have babies that will grow up with disadvantages--and these same GOP legislators NEVER miss an opportunity to make life even harder for them by constantly trying to cut various social programs designed to help the poor. Conservative (GOP) politicians have nothing but disdain for the poor and disadvantaged---they prove that every day. They have to find money to finance another tax cut for the rich, right? So these conservative zealots reek of hypocrisy. They don't like government meddling with most issues--except when it comes to abortion.

There is a women's clinic not far from my house--and of course a few christian crazies are there fairly regularly, aiming to harass the women in their own not-so-subtle ways. The bottom line is that women don't need the morality police telling them how to lead their lives or what reproductive decisions they should make. Lead your own life and leave women alone.

Maybe Planned Parenthood should offer a gun giveaway with some of its services--have a "win a free gun" promotion once every couple of months. That might win the organization some support from the right-wing crazies.

 

[armchair]

Oh, I forgot a key point: These same religious organizations and conservatives who are so obsessed with abortion don't think companies should have to include birth-control coverage in the in the health insurance policies they offer employees! Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about still acting like it's 1850 and not 2017--it's a disgrace. They think women should pay for birth control, and the reality is that if that is the case, some poor women won't pay for it and, therefore, they will have unwanted pregnancies.

You'd think that people and organizations so obsessed with abortion would WANT women to have easy access to birth control, yes? You don't get pregnant, you don't need an abortion. But, no: They want to make it harder for women to get the birth-control methods they need. Totally shameful--a disgrace.

And, of course, it's these same conservatives who prattle on about law-and-order and decry crime. Who do you think commits crime? It is people--men, mostly--who grew up in bad family situations, often because they were raised by single moms in a bad family situation. And if conservatives were as compassionate about these unwanted pregnancies as they pretend to be, foster homes in America would be empty. But I believe there are very large numbers of young people languishing in foster homes. I would have thought that all the christian zealots would have adopted them and would be raising them--but that is not the case.