July 19, 2013 - I talked somewhat about my feelings about the Boston Marathon Bombings when they occurred. It's still a pretty horrible thought to think such events happened and the sensationalist article Rolling Stone is publishing doesn't help. The article is available online. I've read it. I am NOT linking to it. It is among the most offensive insensitive "journalism" I've ever read. Not only does it spend pages attempting to justify that suspect number two (I'm not using his name because I don't believe his name should be publicized as much as it has been) is a victim of abuse we should feel sorry for, it also presents a timeline that completely omits the bombings that took the lives of Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu and injured several others as well as omitting the shooting that later claimed the life of Sean Collier as if all these people are somehow insignificant compared to him and the destruction he caused. It has quite a few unprofessional inaccuracies ranging from constantly referring to suspect number #2 by a nickname, to suggesting suspect number one had a mental disorder (which somehow makes suspect number two's involvement okay), to implying Massachusetts has the death penalty, which it does not. I strongly feel the author who wrote the article as well as the editorial staff that ran it should be let go from their jobs, and I haven't even mentioned the insensitivity of the cover. This is not a story any magazine should have run, let alone a magazine devoted primarily to an unrelated topic like music (but don't worry the article makes a point of pointing out suspect number one was a promising musician before the bombing while still making no reference to any of his victims).
I hate this article. I hate that it implies being a victim of abuse somehow makes one's actions okay. There is no reason to harm the life of innocent people like that.
But let's face it, this comic and website is devoted to abortion, not the events in article or this sorry excuse for "journalism," so that got me thinking, how does this relate back to abortion? Certainly pro-life arguments assert that abortions equate to killing the lives of innocents which is exactly what happened at the bombings. Perhaps they would ask, "what's the difference? Why are you so angry about the bombers' actions and not the actions women and doctors take performing abortions?" Honestly, the question's pretty insulting, at least from my perspective, but for the sake of argument I'm going to try to answer it. Firstly the bombers' actions are random. They didn't care who they hurt, they just wanted to hurt someone. Abortion seekers and providers are not randomly choosing to take the life of another, they are targetting very specific cells while trying not to harm another person's life (specifically that of the mother). If the goal were simply to kill the pregnancy, why not kill the woman carrying it too? There is nothing random about an abortion, but okay, let's expand that question to a what if question of there being a specific target for such horrendous acts of the bombers. Why is murder wrong and abortion is not? The difference comes in two different ways, 1.) if a specific person is targetted for murder they can contact agencies that potentially can protect them such as private security or the police, a pregnancy obviously cannot do that (though it doesn't seem to stop some government representatives from trying to leap to defense pregnancies actually haven't asked for) furthermore 2.) someone committing murder suggests such a person may become a danger to society, killing someone again, abortion seekers and providers don't intend only to focus on the termination of the pregnancy, they don't intend to kill any other living person and in fact look to avoid killing any other person (see what i said about randomness).
The next key difference is that women seeking abortions see significant advantages for terminating their pregnancies. I can cite the Guttmacher study I've cited before about the decreased likelihood of remaining in poverty, the ability to maintain jobs they may have. Women who seek abortions don't sacrifice the portion of their life when they're pregnant, murderers sacrifice the rest of the person they kill's life not to mention their own (assuming they get caught). But perhaps this is taking a backwards approach saying the only thing wrong with abortion is the lack of punishment, but really its a question of how much people contribute to society from such a point. Murderers do not contribute to society and actively pose a threat against it. Women seeking abortions may contribute to society (or may not) but certainly pose no threat to it. Victim's of murder cease contributing to society. Terminated pregnancies never make an impact on society so their potential ability to contribute to society is nothing more than potential and can't be viewed as anything but unknown. Abortion does not equate to murder. Maybe questions about infanticide need to be raised, but in those cases there's proven viability. I believe strongly that life begins at birth as until that time a pregnancy has not proven it can live without being attached to its biological mother. Once a baby is no longer attached to its biological mother there are other options than killing it to address how much or how little someone in a caretaker role wishes to care for it. The Boston Bombers had other options than what they did to address their problems. Rolling Stone should not be suggesting their actions were a just way of lashing out.
-D
I hate this article. I hate that it implies being a victim of abuse somehow makes one's actions okay. There is no reason to harm the life of innocent people like that.
But let's face it, this comic and website is devoted to abortion, not the events in article or this sorry excuse for "journalism," so that got me thinking, how does this relate back to abortion? Certainly pro-life arguments assert that abortions equate to killing the lives of innocents which is exactly what happened at the bombings. Perhaps they would ask, "what's the difference? Why are you so angry about the bombers' actions and not the actions women and doctors take performing abortions?" Honestly, the question's pretty insulting, at least from my perspective, but for the sake of argument I'm going to try to answer it. Firstly the bombers' actions are random. They didn't care who they hurt, they just wanted to hurt someone. Abortion seekers and providers are not randomly choosing to take the life of another, they are targetting very specific cells while trying not to harm another person's life (specifically that of the mother). If the goal were simply to kill the pregnancy, why not kill the woman carrying it too? There is nothing random about an abortion, but okay, let's expand that question to a what if question of there being a specific target for such horrendous acts of the bombers. Why is murder wrong and abortion is not? The difference comes in two different ways, 1.) if a specific person is targetted for murder they can contact agencies that potentially can protect them such as private security or the police, a pregnancy obviously cannot do that (though it doesn't seem to stop some government representatives from trying to leap to defense pregnancies actually haven't asked for) furthermore 2.) someone committing murder suggests such a person may become a danger to society, killing someone again, abortion seekers and providers don't intend only to focus on the termination of the pregnancy, they don't intend to kill any other living person and in fact look to avoid killing any other person (see what i said about randomness).
The next key difference is that women seeking abortions see significant advantages for terminating their pregnancies. I can cite the Guttmacher study I've cited before about the decreased likelihood of remaining in poverty, the ability to maintain jobs they may have. Women who seek abortions don't sacrifice the portion of their life when they're pregnant, murderers sacrifice the rest of the person they kill's life not to mention their own (assuming they get caught). But perhaps this is taking a backwards approach saying the only thing wrong with abortion is the lack of punishment, but really its a question of how much people contribute to society from such a point. Murderers do not contribute to society and actively pose a threat against it. Women seeking abortions may contribute to society (or may not) but certainly pose no threat to it. Victim's of murder cease contributing to society. Terminated pregnancies never make an impact on society so their potential ability to contribute to society is nothing more than potential and can't be viewed as anything but unknown. Abortion does not equate to murder. Maybe questions about infanticide need to be raised, but in those cases there's proven viability. I believe strongly that life begins at birth as until that time a pregnancy has not proven it can live without being attached to its biological mother. Once a baby is no longer attached to its biological mother there are other options than killing it to address how much or how little someone in a caretaker role wishes to care for it. The Boston Bombers had other options than what they did to address their problems. Rolling Stone should not be suggesting their actions were a just way of lashing out.
-D
comments powered by Disqus
