If abortion is murder, how do we respond?

As I reflected upon our recent abortion discussions, my raving lunatic reaction, and some of the reactions to my reactions, I have asked myself this question.  If I really believe that abortion is murder, what should I do about it?  I mean, say the government is taking away Jews, or gays, or political dissidents, to jail them, or worse.  What do I do?  There's a range of responses, the lighter of which seem totally lame and weak, while others seem too reactive.  How do we decide?

Here's my ideas about the range of responses, from light to severe.

1. Do nothing and keep my morality to myself
2. Raise public awareness by asking questions, debating, or even condemning the behavior publicly
3. Get involved in politics to change things
4. Get involved in social organizations that help people avoid being arrested
5. Be subversive - undermine the government or system by helping people escape
6. Non-violent resistance - you know, sit ins, block entrances to buildings, whatever
7. Vigilante resistance - decide to take matters into my own hands - kill my opponents, or at least harass them
8. Organize a militia to overthrow the powers that be.

I guess that most of the pro-life movement is at stages 2-4, though many activists like Operation Rescue are doing steps 5-6.   What would it take to get them to jump the divide to steps 7 and 8?  Christians are forbidden to be violent vigilantes, so step 7 is not going to happen.

But step 8?  Unsure.  Christian forces defeated slavery without taking up arms - well, I mean, during the Civil Rights movement.  But we did have a Civil War before that.  One of the principles we may not be able to avoid is that, when a nation sins so badly by taking and abusing lives (like during slavery), sometimes civil war and death MUST come upon them to cleanse them.  It's part practical reality when unseating such deeply embraced wickedness, and part judgment from God. 

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. 

- Abraham Lincoln

Comments

[Stewart]

Based on our previous discussion, you must realize that there is an unbridgeable gap between the negativity of slavery and that of abortion. In the former case, the victims are intelligent people who are continually faced with the prospects and understanding of their own subjection. In the latter case, the victims don't exist anymore, and they likely never suffered any substantial amount of pain (if they were conscious of any at all).

On a religious level, you may equate the two, but from a non-religious viewpoint they have almost nothing in common.

[Silver Hallide]

Christians are forbidden to be violent vigilantes, so step 7 is not going to happen.

I think that is completely debatable. While doctrine prohibits that sort of violence, people can and will resort to things like that when pushed into a corner.

I can point specifically to Abortion Clinic bombings through this country in the last 15 years as a primary example of fringe and very religious elements of Operation Rescue as doing just that.

Beyond that, upon reflecting upon the banter that has gone back and forth on this topic, I do not feel that I can engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with you Seeker on this or any other subject where you are so filled with passion and shrill, that no moderate (like me) can even listen with an open mind.

It doesn't mean that you have me convinced or that you have won your argument, but rather you have closed what was previously an open mind to listen to an opposing view on this very topic.

When you decide to temper your fanaticism, I will engage you in a rational discussion.

Until then, Silver is going silent with you on this topic.

Sorry.

- Silver

[Louis]

I agree with Silver. When anti-abortion advocates frame the discussion in terms of "murder" and "saving children" and "holocaust," then no communication is possible. This is absolutism in its purest sense. And when it involves something as uncertain as abortion, where reasonable people should be allowed to disagree, it demonizes and closes debate.

[Aaron]

Here is the problem with the requests. Those of us who do view abortion as murder have to simply "temper" our emotions and not be so extreme. It's hard to do that when you view it as murder.

It's similar to asking Louis to not get so riled up about gay issues. He can and does discuss those issues in a rational manner, but occassionally because the issue is so personal to him he shuts down the debate with his passion. That's understandable and to be expected.

I try to remain as rational and logic based in arguments on abortion. I try to think before I type, but I am very grateful that on many occassions no one can see the way I impulsively react to responses. I get angry about this simply being viewed as a intellectual debate (just as Louis can with gay issues).

Slavery may not be the best comparison, but it fits with the view people took of slaves in that time period. We look back at that time with shame that no one spoke louder or do anything more to stop it. We are embarressed that it was even viewed as debateable. That is how those of us who are pro-life feel.

So while some of you may be moderate or view this as simpy a policy debate, cut those of us who view this very personally some slack.

[Louis]

Although I'm sure Aaron will dismiss this (I'm not interested in seeker's view), there is a real difference here between gay issues and abortion. Simply, I am a living, feeling, thinking human with rights, while a fetus is not. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and I thus draw it. Anti-abortion advocates always refer to fetuses as "children" or "babies," to give them the aura of full and completed humanity and equal rights (in fact, superior rights) to the rest of us. I don't believe this. To compare abortion with gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges. I can experience discrimination and, indeed, personal danger, while the fetus cannot. You get mad about something that is purely theoretical for you while I get mad about something that is truly personal. And I also see all this as you imposing your religious beliefs on me, which I resent and reject. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one; if you hate gay sex, don't have it. Just mind your own business.

[Silver Hallide]

So while some of you may be moderate or view this as simpy a policy debate, cut those of us who view this very personally some slack.

Aaron, this is not a policy debate in my eyes. However, I am a moderate on this issue and take it very seriously.

While I am quite capable and have cut those that view this as a very personal issue a lot of slack, I am not willing to listen or be open to discussing an issue when people that are so passionate about an issue use rhetoric and fear mongering to discuss it. If people want to alter others perspectives about an issue, sway public opinion, etc, then a calm and reasoned approach is necessary.

So, I can and HAVE cut you and Seeker a lot of slack on this issue (even more so with Seeker in our real life encounters since I know him personally), but I draw the line squarely at the point of the use of shrill, fear mongering, and labeling of people/groups to raise alarm.

That level of noise deafens an otherwise open ear to discussing what is a very serious issue and the possibility to having ones opinion (in this case mine) swayed and possibly changed.

- Silver