I often feel like some group needs to go to the churches that are producing these groups and stand outside them filming the patrons, with giant posters showing the atrocities that church has perpetrated over the years in the worst possible way (it might be hard, how do you graphically show child rape without it being child porn?)
I would hope that, once they see how disgusting these tactics are, they would stop supporting those who do it and they would stop.
Turnabout's fair play, isn't it?

If abortion were actually wrong then if anything these protests would be unreasonably mild. If children were being murdered in that building then waving banners at the murderers would hardly be an appropriate reaction.

Their fault is in their beliefs, not their tactics.

If they were really murdering children, calling the police would be the appropriate reaction, not subjecting everyone to disgusting images in order to try to...I don't know...disgust someone out of an abortion?
I think their beliefs AND actions are wrong.

Aren't the police complicit in this scenario? Historically, effective opposition to state-sanctioned murder often takes the form of campaigns of sabotage and assassination. We ought to be grateful pro-lifers generally lack the courage of their convictions.

It's meaningless to criticise a person's actions when they fall in line with their ideology. Whatever you see in the video, as well as much more extreme measures besides, is totally justified if the pro-life position is correct.

I don't understand what you mean about the police.
Unfortunately, recently, much more effective opposition to freedom of choice has come in the form of ridiculously transparently designed, unscientific, non-medical laws requiring completely un-needed expensive medical equipment and irrelevant abilities (like 'admitting privilege' at the nearest hospital, as if the hospital won't take an emergency patient without a Dr. 'admitting' them).
I have never heard of any campaign to sabotage execution machines or assassinate executioners or wardens. I guess THAT kind of "state sanctioned murder" is OK, but the kind science and law has repeatedly and conclusively said is NOT murder... people involved in that get threatened, harassed, and sometimes murdered themselves....by the "anti-murder" people. WHAT?!? I am glad that most of those people do lack the 'courage of their convictions' as you put it.
Ahhh, but aren't these actions are diametrically opposed to these people's stated ideology, of love and tolerance for other people's ideas and customs?...and doesn't giving to Caesar what is Caesar's means following the law (as I've had it described), and thou shall not kill mean no murdering Doctors...ever? (I'm assuming they are a Christian group, if this one isn't, then ascribe my comments to those that are)

What if others fervently believe the Greeks were correct, and it's really proper to not consider a baby a person until they are one year old, until then it's fine to just leave them outside to die or toss them off a cliff? (I'm not really saying that we should go back to that, I'm just pointing out that there are extremes on the 'pro-choice' or 'anti-unwanted children' side with historical and religious context to back them up). We would say it's fine to hold that ideology (well, legal to hold that ideology, maybe not fine), but certainly not legal or fine to act on it.

I feel that it's not meaningless to criticize a person's inappropriate actions, no matter the 'reason' for them, if it's backed up with consequence. Most people, as you noted, don't have the 'strength of their convictions' to risk going to jail, or even public ridicule for acting inappropriately, even if they sincerely believe it's for a good reason.

Bull
shit

<redacted>

Are christians and pro-lifers excluded from utilitarian reasoning? Harass a few people to save a life, kill one doctor to save a hundred foetuses, this is still all absolutely consistent and righteous if their belief is correct.

The belief is the poison. The problem with pro-lifers isn't what they do, it isn't that they're big meanies who pick on poor helpless women, it's that they're pro-lifers. It isn't fine to hold bad ideologies. If an ideology is the source of an action, then holding that ideology without acting on it must be equivalent with acting on it, and the action must be irrelevant.

I've seen that once. Might have been after one of the irish scandals, a guy holding a sign with a little kid and an old clergyman with a robe-tent approaching with his hands out like mr burns and a big grin. The thing is when it comes to paedophilia, you can't think it of anyone you think you know, so you discard images like that as silly fairy tales without thinking beyond the metaphor. You don't want to be wondering if the guy you just shook hands with gets drunk before sunday school and manipulates extra private tuition with the shy kid who doesn't have a dad and cries a lot.

Sorry to be so graphic there, but it is what it is in all its vileness, and everyone complicit ought to feel fucking ashamed of themselves. I'll stop before i derail, but the moral standards these people are hiding behind are very shady indeed, because somewhere in that chain of command someone knew and kept quiet about the institutional rape-centres the Catholics kept running for many decades. Unless they've leaned on their own faith-leaders to press for justice and HARD, their hands are dirty, and they are ridiculous to stand there shouting shame on someone else.

Man, i think i'm in love with this woman..

Maybe it's me, but I think what gorillaman meant about the police is pretty obvious. They would be allowing a murder to take place. They would be defending and protecting the murderers in that scenario. And in so doing they would be complicit in the act of murder.

Also seems pretty clear to me that he's not advocating women being prevented access to abortions, but instead pointing out the hypocrisy of those who clearly don't believe their own bullshit, because if they did, they'd be storming the building to prevent those "murders".

Don't mean to speak for you @gorillaman, sorry. But that's my take on it.

Absolutely they are, in my eyes, their beliefs demand it. They must 'exclude' themselves from following their own beliefs (which is ironic, since that's why they harass and kill the doctors) because something bothers them based on BS they've been told by others (like a blastocyst is a person). If one of the main tenants of your belief is 'treat others as you would have them treat you', yet you ignore that, and another is 'thou shall not kill', but you ignore that too, you can no longer stand on the tenants of your belief system to excuse or explain your action, you don't follow that belief system.
Again, I disagree. People may hold any insane notion they wish, so long as they don't ACT on it. The problem is that they ACT, not that they believe insanity. That they believe insanity is the REASON they act. It's kind of like saying the problem with thieves is not that they steal, but that they don't make enough money. But many, if not most thieves have money.

Many people hold bad ideologies without acting on them. In America, you are allowed, in fact guaranteed the right to believe any crazy thing you wish. It's only how you act on those beliefs we are interested in. For instance, I think what Mormons believe is completely obvious insane BS, but it seems to create a group of people that's well adjusted, happy, kind, and not angry or abusive (plural marriages and 'Profits' notwithstanding). For me, what's in your mind is your own, I only care about how you act in the real world.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. ONLY the action is relevant IMO.

Ahhhh. I see. If so, I think he should have said "they believe the police are complicit", since there's no crime happening for the police to be complicit in, in reality.
Yes, IF abortion WERE murder, the police, state and federal government, all employees, landlords, etc. would all be complicit. Because it's not, they are not. That's what confused me. Thanks.

Well guess what? People don't exist in this world to write a script tailored just for you to understand. I've seen you say this "well they should have wrote it differently" thing before. Ok. Try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.

Best advice, don't assume the worst.

Please re-read. I made no assumption (best or worst) about the confusing sentence, I simply said I didn't understand what was meant.
When people write in 3/4 thoughts, assuming others will complete the thought, some of us (especially those who don't think "normally") will have to question their meaning to understand. It's not about insisting they write 'tailored for me to understand', it's asking (quite respectfully I thought) to clarify, and expressing my thought on how it might be done.
What he said was "Aren't the police complicit in this scenario?", but in reference to a post that discussed multiple scenarios. I read it multiple times before replying, it didn't make sense to me and wasn't clear...were they complicit in the scenario of subjecting others to disgusting images (the last scenario discussed)? No? Is there actually murder happening that they are complicit in? No? Then clarification was required....and I thanked you for providing some.
I can't fathom why that set you off this morn., but it seems to have done so.
Please try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.
Best advice, don't assume the worst. (which it seems you've done here).

EDIT: Some more good advice, if you intend to quote someone's statement, you should get the statement/quote right, otherwise you're paraphrasing and should use ' not ". "I think he should have said" is completely different from 'well they should have wrote it differently'. The former is my opinion, clearly, the latter is not (nor is it something I have said or written that I recall).
If someone is replying to someone else, intending to have a conversation, it's fairly important that their 'script' be tailored to the other person if they wish to actually converse and not just spout words at them.