Priest Says Who to Vote For

[Peace]

My Dear Knight:

Before we continue with today’s invocation of the Phatmass Inquisition, would it be safe to assume that pointing out other people’s faults is a good thing when you do it to others, but is not good when I do it to you?

I mean really. What is next on your agenda? A Queen Elizabethan style oath of fidelity to the pro-life cause, at pain of being demoted to Noob status, perhaps?

As to our prior discussion, has it crossed your mind why the only people who reach the same conclusion that you have reached are all pro-choice? The idea of putting women in jail for procuring an abortion is an argument that pro-choice advocates use against the pro-life movement. No significant pro-life leader or pro-life thinker today advocates for what you have advocated. Not even Father Frank Pavone would go to the extreme of putting women in jail, and he is putting dead children on the altar.

Why is it, do you think, that virtually everyone involved in the pro-life movement has reached a different conclusion on this issue than you have? Do you think that they do not fully recognize the value of unborn life? Do they lack sufficient commitment to the cause?

Or could it be, perhaps, that they have thought about the issue seriously and correctly concluded that putting women in jail for having an abortion is not a rational thing to do?

I will go and take another look at the Gospel of Life while you ponder that question.

Before we go further, and before I explain further why your idea is irrational, I think it would be good to clarify exactly what it is that you are advocating. Perhaps I simply do not understand exactly what it is that you want to do.

Assume that there are no mitigating circumstances such as rape, incest, extreme poverty, coercion, or mental duress involved, for the sake of the discussion. Also assume that the woman involved has a Ph.D. in biology and is fully aware that a fertilized egg is a human life deserving the same right to survive as any other human. Let’s assume that she takes an abortion inducing drug with the full intention to terminate her pregnancy.

1) In your view, what is the minimum penalty that the woman should face for intentionally ending the life of an egg that that was fertilized one week prior? In the case of an unintentional killing such as DUI manslaughter the penalty would typically be in the range of 5 to 10 years jail time.  So in the case of an intentional killing, which is objectively graver than an unintentional killing, is it safe to assume that your penalty would be at least a minimum of 5 to 10 years jail time?

2) In your view, what is the maximum penalty that the woman should face for intentionally ending the life of an egg that that was fertilized one week prior?  Note here that a life sentence in jail or the death penalty would be the maximum penalty in most states. If we are to impose the same penalty, based on the principle that both the fertilized egg and the adult have an equal right to life, should the maximum penalty for a woman who has had an abortion also be a life sentence in jail, or the death penalty?

This seems to be exactly what you are proposing by your idea that the penalties should be the same, but perhaps I have misunderstood your position.

[Gabriela]

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

"I just honestly do not care" You forgot to bold that part. That's the important part, that's the part I take issue with, that's why I asked @dUSt to review your words. The mass-murder of children aka abortion aka the pro-life movement is an issue, of course it's an issue, but an issue you just honestly do not care about. I cannot help to be reminded by the parable of the Good Samaritan when I read your statements. Those that walked pass that man also just honestly did not care about that man's issue either and the way that some talked of the Samaritans in those days is how you talk about pro-lifers today.

And yes ma'am you do care passionately, it's shows very clearly in your extremely negative criticisms.

You quote me like a Mormon quotes the Bible. I'd like to know what you do for immigrants, war refugees, oppressed workers, sex slaves, the hungry, the abused, the poor, the sick, the unloved, the forgotten, and everyone else in the world that you help less, think about less, and pray for less because you devote so much righteous time to abortion, and there are only 24 hours in a day and so much energy in a human being.

I cannot help but be reminded of the self-righteous Pharisee when I read your statements. Have you ever heard of compassion fatigue? It's a real thing.

But really, it's time to move this screed to the Debate Table, or close it.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Gabriela
Oh, good. It's been moved. Now I can ignore it.

[Ice_nine]

I kind of agree with @peace on this one. The idea that all life is equal isn't logically followed by "all should get the same punishment."

And focusing or harping on this punishment is counterproductive on changing the tide on abortion. I think such people might not realize what it's like to grow up as a woman/girl. It's a burden biologically and socially. Lots of girls with low self-esteem, treated as objects, and have no legal recourse when violated. Maybe women should "keep their legs shut," but a lot of them engage in sexually activity because pressure from guys (esp in the younger years) and the desire to feel loved and cared for and the fear that they have to put out before they lose that. I just know how croutons my self-esteem was as a young girl/woman and my heart goes out to women who wind up pregnant under the pressure of all these issues and act out of fear.

Also, as a woman, I face the constant threat of rape or sexual assault. I know that might seems crazy to guys, but whenever I go out in public esp when I'm alone, it's almost like you have to explicitly plan for that possibility. Hell I don't even have to "go out" there's always the possibility of meeting someone, getting to know them a little bit, and having them turn out to be a predator. And this is a constant fear. And I know that if this ever did happen to me that many people would not believe me and there would likely be no justice. And if I were to become pregnant in such an ugly manner, while I pray I would do the right thing, I think there's just a lack of empathy towards women in general, that I was talking about in the first paragraph,  that just compunds the difficulty of dealing with rape and incest pregnancies.

There's also people who believe in mercy-killing pre-born persons. In some states euthanasia is legal. I obviously disagree, but there's a different quality about it than killing someone for other reasons. The person thinks they are being compassionate. And although this is twisted logic I don't think they merit the same penalty as people who murder for other motivations.

Then again there's women who are totally selfish and seem to relish the idea of killing their own. My uncle's ex-wife, whose daughters (my cousins), were like best-friends growing up. She was/is a bona fide sociopath and made their lives miserable. She got an abortion and proudly told the whole extended family because she's malicious and knew it would hurt people. People like her can be locked up for their entire miserable lives IMO. I guess it's a case by case thing.

[KnightofChrist]

54 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

You quote me like a Mormon quotes the Bible. I'd like to know what you do for immigrants, war refugees, oppressed workers, sex slaves, the hungry, the abused, the poor, the sick, the unloved, the forgotten, and everyone else in the world that you help less, think about less, and pray for less because you devote so much righteous time to abortion, and there are only 24 hours in a day and so much energy in a human being.

I cannot help but be reminded of the self-righteous Pharisee when I read your statements. Have you ever heard of compassion fatigue? It's a real thing.

But really, it's time to move this screed to the Debate Table, or close it.

Well, I can honestly tell you I actually do care about immigrants, war refugees, the oppressed, sex slaves, the hungry, the abused, the poor, the sick, the unloved, the forgotten, and everyone else in the world including the unborn. It's not my fault abortion destroys more innocence than any of the issues you listed. That is the fault of wicked or indifferent men and women who work in that industry. I would never say that "I just honestly do not care" about the issues, then stating I'm not even bothering to pray about the issues you've listed while at the same time offering up extremely negative criticisms of those involved in movements help those effected by these issues. Because doing so would mean I didn't care about the people effected by those issues and honestly if I talked about those who cared deeply about those issues the way you continue to talk about pro-lifers I think I'd run the risk of being banned from Phatmass or at very least put on little 'vacation'.

You need to drop your extremely negative remarks against pro-lifers and if that means ignoring this thread then by all means do so. Because, if, and I mean if I am at all guilty of any of the things you're accusing me of you're being a very bad example of teaching by example.

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

I kind of agree with @peace on this one. The idea that all life is equal isn't logically followed by "all should get the same punishment."

Allow me to give some examples of what I mean.

Example #1: A thee day old baby is murdered by a man who rams a pair of scissors into the back of that child's skull.

A baby three days before she is born is murdered by a man who rams a pair of scissors into the back of that child's skull.

Set of Questions #1: Should both victims have Equal Protection under the law? Should both murderers be punished equally, since both of their crimes were effectively equal?

Example #2: A 45 year old white man is murdered by a 45 year old black man who shoots him in the head.

A 45 year old black man is murdered by a 45 year old white man who shoots him in the head.

Set of Questions #2: Should both victims have Equal Protection under the law? Should both murderers be punished equally, since both of their crimes were effectively equal?

My answer is yes to all the questions. However, the punishment for the murderers example 1 may not be the same for the murderers in example 2. Murdering children is typically always seen as more grave. Also, in both examples we are to assume each murderer committed each act with full act of the will, intention and knowledge.

 

[LittleWaySoul]

57 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Well, I can honestly tell you I actually do care about immigrants, war refugees, the oppressed, sex slaves, the hungry, the abused, the poor, the sick, the unloved, the forgotten, and everyone else in the world including the unborn. It's not my fault abortion destroys more innocence than any of the issues you listed. That is the fault of wicked or indifferent men and women who work in that industry. I would never say that "I just honestly do not care" about the issues, then stating I'm not even bothering to pray about the issues you've listed while at the same time offering up extremely negative criticisms of those involved in movements help those effected by these issues. Because doing so would mean I didn't care about the people effected by those issues and honestly if I talked about those who cared deeply about those issues the way you continue to talk about pro-lifers I think I'd run the risk of being banned from Phatmass or at very least put on little 'vacation'.

You need to drop your extremely negative remarks against pro-lifers and if that means ignoring this thread then by all means do so. Because, if, and I mean if I am at all guilty of any of the things you're accusing me of you're being a very bad example of teaching by example.

Allow me to give some examples of what I mean.

Example #1: A thee day old baby is murdered by a man who rams a pair of scissors into the back of that child's skull.

A baby three days before she is born is murdered by a man who rams a pair of scissors into the back of that child's skull.

Set of Questions #1: Should both victims have Equal Protection under the law? Should both murderers be punished equally, since both of their crimes were effectively equal?

Example #2: A 45 year old white man is murdered by a 45 year old black man who shoots him in the head.

A 45 year old black man is murdered by a 45 year old white man who shoots him in the head.

Set of Questions #2: Should both victims have Equal Protection under the law? Should both murderers be punished equally, since both of their crimes were effectively equal?

My answer is yes to all the questions. However, the punishment for the murderers example 1 may not be the same for the murderers in example 2. Murdering children is typically always seen as more grave. Also, in both examples we are to assume each murderer committed each act with full act of the will, intention and knowledge.

In these examples you speak of the abortionist, the punishment of whom has yet to be discussed here. As far as I can tell, we've only been speaking about the mothers in this scenario thus far. I think there's very very often a difference in gravity/knowledge/consent between the two parties. So your post doesn't really clarify your position to me.

[KnightofChrist]

6 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

In these examples you speak of the abortionist, the punishment of whom has yet to be discussed here. As far as I can tell, we've only been speaking about the mothers in this scenario thus far. I think there's very very often a difference in gravity/knowledge/consent between the two parties. So your post doesn't really clarify your position to me.

 

Ok, two mothers with the full act of their wills and knowledge that their children are persons pay the murderers in Example 1 to murder their children. Both of their motives are equal, they simply do not want to be burdened with a child and are seeking out someone to murder their children to remove those burdens. And this is a reality where abortion or 'fetusicide' is a crime, and infanticide are equal crimes of murder.

The crimes are conspiracy to commit murder, and murder in the first degree. The minimum sentence 25 years imprisonment with the chance of parole, maximum sentence life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit murder is treated the same as physically committing the murder in American Federal Law.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/10/2016 at 5:28 PM, Gabriela said:

You quote me like a Mormon quotes the Bible. I'd like to know what you do for immigrants, war refugees, oppressed workers, sex slaves, the hungry, the abused, the poor, the sick, the unloved, the forgotten, and everyone else in the world that you help less, think about less, and pray for less because you devote so much righteous time to abortion, and there are only 24 hours in a day and so much energy in a human being.

I cannot help but be reminded of the self-righteous Pharisee when I read your statements. Have you ever heard of compassion fatigue? It's a real thing.

But really, it's time to move this screed to the Debate Table, or close it.

So, what you're saying is, "God, I thank you that I am not like the self-righteous Pharisee over here"...?

The Church has stated that abortion is the gravest evil facing a conscientious voter.  Not in ex Cathedra, but still authoritatively, and that truth is still binding on all Catholics.

When I read your original statement, I did a double-take at your profile name thingy, and was astonished to see the CM flag.  I don't know who you voted for in the election (or even if you're a US citizen), but no Catholic should be attacked for voting for Biff.  I mean Trump.  In my state, we had over 20 different candidates to choose from.  I did at least a (very) little bit of research into all of them, and they all supported at least 1 major thing that is strictly opposed by the Church (whether abortion or gay marriage, etc...).  It became extremely clear to me that this election was not about what the candidate stood for personally, but what they said they would stand for as president.  I only pray that God moves Mr. Trump to enact the changes that are in accord with His plan.

Certainly though, without any doubt, voting for Hillary Clinton would have been a mortal sin.

[Archaeology cat]

On 11/10/2016 at 10:13 PM, KnightofChrist said:

 

Ok, two mothers with the full act of their wills and knowledge that their children are persons pay the murderers in Example 1 to murder their children. Both of their motives are equal, they simply do not want to be burdened with a child and are seeking out someone to murder their children to remove those burdens. And this is a reality where abortion or 'fetusicide' is a crime, and infanticide are equal crimes of murder.

The crimes are conspiracy to commit murder, and murder in the first degree. The minimum sentence 25 years imprisonment with the chance of parole, maximum sentence life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit murder is treated the same as physically committing the murder in American Federal Law.

The key here, though, is with full knowledge and consent, without being coerced or pressured in any way. I doubt most women who have abortions fulfill that. I agree that we need to work towards everyone seeing the unborn as persons worthy of protection and all the other rights every other person has. Right now, though, many feel they have no choice (ironically enough). So when we're at a place where that isn't the case, and everyone knows without a doubt what exactly abortion is and that their unborn child is a person, then yeah, we can talk about the woman being punished. Until then, I'd prefer to focus on punishing the person performing the abortion instead (similarly, some places have stopped prosecuting women for prostitution in recognition that the women are victims there, too, and instead prosecute those seeking the prostitutes and the pimps). There are two victims with abortion: the child and the woman who has been convinced she must do this horrible thing. Let's work to help them both.

[Socrates]

On 11/9/2016 at 9:37 PM, Gabriela said:

Well, not one wedded to leftist liberal politics. But I do think we can re-imagine the pro-life movement in a way that doesn't alienate people. Gruesome photos don't need to be bandied about in public where people can't avoid them; we can save them for websites where people can find them if they're interested. Sites like LifeSiteNews and other crappy "news" outlets don't need to exaggerate or blatantly lie about the findings of scientific research on abortion and/or contraception; they can accept what we do and don't know at present and make better, more credible arguments with that. Individuals can stop screaming hysterically about the issue in public and online; they can instead engage in civil, well-reasoned discourse about the issue when people agree to engage with them.

Etc.

Basically: Stop looking like the crazy abortion versions of Waco and start thinking about how you can actually change real people's minds. Get off the self-righteous kick that tells you your moral duty is to scream as loud and hysterically as possible about the outrage that is abortion and recognize that if all you do is alienate people you're neither effective nor righteous, because your moral duty is to actually engage hearts and minds—which frankly, the anti-abortion movement royally smells of elderberries at. Especially the Catholic wing of it.

Your post here makes me whether you actually know many people active in the pro-life movement, or if your "information" about pro-lifers comes mostly from reading left-leaning websites and blogs (such as Shea's).

I've known a lot of pro-lifers my entire life; I was a pro-life baby whose parents were active in the movement from its early days, went to a Catholic school that actually takes off on the day of the March for Life so everybody can attend, been in heavily pro-life parishes, etc. And I can assure you, the overwhelming majority of persons involved in the pro-life movement are good, decent, prayerful, and intelligent persons - nothing at all like the caricature you've presented here of a bunch of shrieking, hysterical maniacs and imbeciles quick to shove bloody babies in women's faces at every opportunity.

Overwhelmingly, pro-life protests are peaceful and prayerful - in stark contrast to the often hateful, vulgar and offensive displays of many "pro-choice" rallies and protests.  And overall, across the board, there is far, far, far more violence, screaming and craziness at left-wing protests of all sorts - "Black Lives Matter," "Occupy Wall Street," etc.  I'm not claiming bad behavior on the left, justifies bad behavior on the part of pro-lifers - just trying to help put things in perspective.

I personally know plenty of Catholic pro-lifers who are active in women's shelters, adoption services, etc.  And while I don't know exactly what exaggerations and "blatant lies" you are referring to, I do know abortionists and their political advocates frequently blatantly lie about abortion in order to push their cause.  I'd question how truly objective and factual your sources are before making ugly blanket charges against the pro-life movement.

Can pro-lifers improve, and perhaps find more effective tactics?  Of course.  And, of course, you can always find some crazies and obnoxious persons, as you can among supporters of any cause.  But Mark Shea and his ilk, screaming hysterical hatred of pro-lifers and supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton, are certainly doing nothing whatever to save unborn lives.  Remove the plank in your own eye, before you try to remove the speck in your brother's.

Frankly, your attacks on Dominicansoul, as well as pro-lifers in general, come off as insulting and ignorant.

[Socrates]

On 11/9/2016 at 10:58 PM, PhuturePriest said:

As a good priest I know said, the pro-life movement has been shouting about abortion for forty years, and its complete incompetency is evident in the fact that it's been forty years with zero change.

And for the record, that priest is so pro-life he went to jail in Canada for praying at an abortion clinic, so please don't presume he's nonchalant about the matter.

The March for Life and shouting about taking down Roe v Wade and how literally everything in the world pales in comparison to the most pressing issue of all history has gotten us nowhere. We've made ourselves look like morons and our rhetoric has become so extreme we've inspired people to kill abortionists, because abortion is clearly much graver than killing an abortionist, right? It's time to rethink our methods. We didn't convert Rome by picketing the coliseum once per year -- we converted it by befriending those who disagreed with us and inspiring them by the genuineness of our love, belief, and actions.

The fact of the matter is the left convinces the public that we hate women, and they're able to do it because the people who buy into that narrative aren't friends with people like us who genuinely express care and love for them. If we did our job, the left could spin that story all day and people would know for a fact it was false simply by the example of their friends. As it is, the only contact they have with us is when they see us outside of abortion clinics holding up signs that accuse them of murder, and the only time they hear of us is once every election cycle when we try to elect officials decrying them of perpetuating a holocaust. That's not exactly the way you win hearts.

First of all, I think it's false to say the pro-life movement has accomplished absolutely nothing.  There has been plenty of good achieved at the individual level - women convinced by pro-lifers not to kill their baby and choose life, persons who have individually converted from "pro-choice" to pro-life, based on the testimony of pro-lifers, etc.  Obviously, the numbers aren't anywhere where we want them to be, but it's not fair to blame this entirely on the alleged horribleness of pro-lifers.

Frankly, significant progress will only be made when people convert in large numbers to Christ.

Again, I think this blanket trashing of pro-lifers is ignorant and unjust.

 

Secondly, using the tiny number of killings of abortionists (especially, given the millions of persons and number of decades of the movement) to condemn pro-life rhetoric in general is a complete garbage "argument."  (Though it's often used by those on the left to try to silence pro-life speech.)

A lot more people were killed on account of the issue of slavery than about abortion (not even counting the whole War Between the States).  Does this mean that people should have avoided speaking out strongly against the evils of slavery?

While we should exercise charity, this doesn't mean we should avoid telling the truth for fear of upsetting people or "setting off the crazies."  The facts are that an unborn child is indeed a human person, and abortion objectively is the murder of this innocent human person, and that millions of these innocent children are murdered every year in the U.S. alone - making it the biggest slaughter of human beings in history.  The rhetoric is horrific because the reality is horrific, and people need to see this in order for truth to be served.

Avoiding speaking harsh truths and sticking to polite conversations about pleasant-sounding abstractions like "choice" and "reproductive freedom," and pretending abortion is really not all that bad will accomplish nothing.  Much less will "finding common ground" by bashing pro-lifers day in and day out, or perhaps voting for Hillary (or whomever the next pro-abortion liberal pol happens to be).

Obviously, you raise legitimate points in that we need to do more than simply protest abortion, and fight it in the political sphere.  But that doesn't mean we should soft-petal the ugly truths about this issue, or downplay its moral gravity.

[PhuturePriest]

7 hours ago, Socrates said:

First of all, I think it's false to say the pro-life movement has accomplished absolutely nothing.  There has been plenty of good achieved at the individual level - women convinced by pro-lifers not to kill their baby and choose life, persons who have individually converted from "pro-choice" to pro-life, based on the testimony of pro-lifers, etc.  Obviously, the numbers aren't anywhere where we want them to be, but it's not fair to blame this entirely on the alleged horribleness of pro-lifers.

Frankly, significant progress will only be made when people convert in large numbers to Christ.

Again, I think this blanket trashing of pro-lifers is ignorant and unjust.

 

Secondly, using the tiny number of killings of abortionists (especially, given the millions of persons and number of decades of the movement) to condemn pro-life rhetoric in general is a complete garbage "argument."  (Though it's often used by those on the left to try to silence pro-life speech.)

A lot more people were killed on account of the issue of slavery than about abortion (not even counting the whole War Between the States).  Does this mean that people should have avoided speaking out strongly against the evils of slavery?

While we should exercise charity, this doesn't mean we should avoid telling the truth for fear of upsetting people or "setting off the crazies."  The facts are that an unborn child is indeed a human person, and abortion objectively is the murder of this innocent human person, and that millions of these innocent children are murdered every year in the U.S. alone - making it the biggest slaughter of human beings in history.  The rhetoric is horrific because the reality is horrific, and people need to see this in order for truth to be served.

Avoiding speaking harsh truths and sticking to polite conversations about pleasant-sounding abstractions like "choice" and "reproductive freedom," and pretending abortion is really not all that bad will accomplish nothing.  Much less will "finding common ground" by bashing pro-lifers day in and day out, or perhaps voting for Hillary (or whomever the next pro-abortion liberal pol happens to be).

Obviously, you raise legitimate points in that we need to do more than simply protest abortion, and fight it in the political sphere.  But that doesn't mean we should soft-petal the ugly truths about this issue, or downplay its moral gravity.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my argument.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't talk about the reality of killing people in abortion or pretending that it isn't bad. I'm simply suggesting calling people murderers perpetuating a holocaust is perhaps not an effective rhetorical strategy with them.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my argument.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't talk about the reality of killing people in abortion or pretending that it isn't bad. I'm simply suggesting calling people murderers perpetuating a holocaust is perhaps not an effective rhetorical strategy with them.

Calling people murderers only alienates people and causes them to shut out being open to listening.   Discussion founded on the assumption you are reasonable and they are reasonable is more fruitful. If they believe (and are told by society, doctors, and others) that they are simply expelling a cyst or unwanted tissue, it's an illogical leap and unreasonable to convince them it's murder. 

I laud Fr Pavone for attempting to humanize what is being harmed with abortion, but what he did is like parading a circus side show.  It's shockingly disrespectful of human remains, especially given the Church's recent comments on respecting cremains.    Ultimately, the real shocker is how society has dehumanized in-womb persons.  

[LittleWaySoul]

On 11/13/2016 at 1:33 AM, fides' Jack said:

Certainly though, without any doubt, voting for Hillary Clinton would have been a mortal sin.

... let's read the qualifications for mortal sin again, shall we?

I felt about the same as you this time last year. But upon reexamination of Church teaching both on voting and on mortal sin, I've come to a different conclusion. Voting pro-choice can be a mortal sin. But I don't believe it was for most of the people I know who voted for her. Keep in mind: full knowledge, full consent, grave matter.

Still, I personally could not bring myself to vote for her. I am tired of cooperating in grave evil, even in a material (and thus permissible in certain circumstances) way.

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/14/2016 at 7:08 AM, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my argument.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't talk about the reality of killing people in abortion or pretending that it isn't bad. I'm simply suggesting calling people murderers perpetuating a holocaust is perhaps not an effective rhetorical strategy with them.

Got it calling people murderers who are perpetuating a Holocaust that's bad. But saying other kinds of people are like morons shouting in the street who accomplished nothing, that's acceptable. Okay, all right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

[Socrates]

On 11/14/2016 at 6:08 AM, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my argument.

Nowhere did I say we shouldn't talk about the reality of killing people in abortion or pretending that it isn't bad. I'm simply suggesting calling people murderers perpetuating a holocaust is perhaps not an effective rhetorical strategy with them.

It's actually not clear exactly what you were trying to argue, but part of your post did in fact come across as an insulting smear against the pro-life movement and pro-lifers in general - essentially calling the movement entirely useless, saying the March for Life, opposing Roe v. Wade, etc. makes us "look like morons," and blaming it for murders:

Quote

The March for Life and shouting about taking down Roe v Wade and how literally everything in the world pales in comparison to the most pressing issue of all history has gotten us nowhere. We've made ourselves look like morons and our rhetoric has become so extreme we've inspired people to kill abortionists . . .

 

And presumably you agree that abortion is in fact the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.  That is the definition of murder.  And the reality is that you cannot have a murder without a murderer - i.e. someone who commits that murder.  Murders don't commit themselves.

Calling abortion murder isn't crazy, overblown inflammatory rhetoric, but simply telling the truth about abortion, ugly and unpleasant and upsetting as it may be.  If abortion wasn't murder, then there wouldn't be a reason to so strongly oppose it and demand it be outlawed.  As, in sheer numbers, the abortion industry has created the largest mass-slaughter of human beings in history, it is certainly at least arguable that it is the most pressing moral issue of our time.

For the most part, pro-lifers don't run around calling women considering abortion "murderers."  This practice is frowned upon by most pro-life groups, and, while I don't think women who get abortion are all entirely innocent victims, many are deceived, pressured, or coerced by others.  But those actually running the abortion mills and killing the babies do know what they are doing, and are guilty, even if they may have justified their bloody profession to themselves or be in a state of denial.  Overwhelmingly, pro-life rhetoric focuses on the life of the child, and the evil of the act itself and the industry which perpetuates and profits from it, rather than on condemning women.

It seems to me you've largely attacked a straw-man caricature, rather than reality.