All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2020 - Davis Aurini
17:06
It is Immoral to Kill an Abortion Doctor

Originally uploaded March, 2017

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The morality of killing abortion doctors.
A requested video from Frank Leone, who wants me to work for my shekels.
Now, this is the sort of question that people would prefer to ignore most of the time, particularly those who are opposed to abortion.
Because if there's somebody who is making their living off of killing human beings and the government's not doing anything about it, then shouldn't we be taking the law into our own hands?
That's a question we're going to be addressing.
And we're going to use a hypothetical for it because the question of abortion brings out way too much autism.
I'm not going to be talking about when a zygote becomes a fetus, when it becomes a person, when it should be legal, or any of that.
Because nobody else is actually talking about that.
They're just using facts as a blunt weapon to use against the opposition.
Instead, we're going to use a hypothetical.
A clinic, a legal clinic, which is generally accepted by society, where doctors will euthanize the infants of women who no longer want to be mothers.
Two-year-old, three-year-old, four-year-old infants being quietly euthanized because the woman no longer wants to be responsible.
Because this is what the people who are opposed to abortion, this is what they view as happening.
Regardless of where you think human life starts, they believe that it is a human life, that it is an ensoled being.
And if we're going to address the question of the morality of their actions, of the abortion doctor killers, we need to understand where they're coming from.
So in this hypothetical situation, would it be right to kill that euthanasianist who is putting children to death?
The easy answer, the pragmatic answer is no, but I'm not interested in pragmatic.
You know, you shouldn't do it because you'll go to jail.
You shouldn't do it because of whatever.
That's not a moral answer.
That's a pragmatic answer.
And pragmatic, good intentions pave the way to hell.
So what should we do in such a situation?
Well, let's imagine, instead of a hypothetical, let's imagine a real case of this happening, a society where women do put their infants to death, and not with a pleasant euthanasia, but with a torturous, painful death.
Let's imagine you found yourself in Carthage, where the Carthaginian women would regularly put their infants into the smoldering hands of their God to burn to death.
What would you do then?
Let's say you kill that priest that's administering the sacrifice.
Have you stopped the problem?
Let's say you grab one child and run off with it.
Have you solved the problem?
Killing the priest is not going to stop the sacrifices.
Grabbing one of those infants and running off with it is not going to save the infant.
When you have a society that is putting children to death, The only solution is for the society to recognize its wrongdoing or for a foreign tribe to come in and destroy that society for its wrongdoing.
And in the case of the Carthaginians, in the case of the Aztecs, that's exactly what happened.
Let's consider death for a moment.
Because the fact of the matter is the universe does not care about death.
The universe is a fallen universe.
We are living in a fallen world.
Adam and Eve were not the first to sin, after all.
To put this into colloquial terminology, life sucks, wear a hat.
Earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, all of this puts children to death all the time.
And now, if we're in a position to save one of those children, we should do what we can.
But you can't save all of them.
To ask if you're required to go save that one child being sacrificed by the Carthaginians or the Aztecs is to ask: should you, yourself, devote your entire life to trying to save children and adults who are being threatened by natural disasters?
The fact of the matter is that we can't.
We can't save everybody, not as individuals.
But what we can do is contribute to a just society.
Because this is a question of justice at the end of the day.
How do we enact justice in an unjust society?
And I think it's important to recognize that all societies are unjust to some degree or another.
Justice is one of those ideals that we pursue as a civilization.
It's a civilizational thing, not an individual thing.
And if you try and impose, if you try and pursue your conception of justice purely through brute force, then what you are pursuing is a form of tyranny.
This is why slaves were commanded to obey their masters.
Not because slavery was a good institution, but because we are commanded to follow the dictates of our society.
We are also expected to be better than our society, but we are not supposed to be undermining it.
In fact, it's not until you already have a shadow government, like the American rebels did when they rebelled against an unjust king, they already had a replacement civilization ready to take hold.
They were just throwing off the foreign shackles of power.
And if those foreign shackles had been allowing the murder of infants, that would have been yet another reason to overthrow King George.
But if you don't have a replacement civilization, if you don't have a network of civilized human beings willing to take over the role of government, then the revolution becomes a revolution.
It moves in a circle, and you're just replacing one tyrant with another who's probably going to be a lot worse.
This is what the French found out when they overthrew their monarchy.
And this is what you'd be doing if you were to go kill an abortion doctor.
You don't have a civilization to replace it.
You don't have a system of courts and laws to maintain order.
So, sure, you get revenge against that one individual doctor.
But either you throw all of society into chaos or you've accomplished nothing and the abortions are still going on.
It's the exact same question as the superhero question.
Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?
Because the Joker has been responsible for numerous deaths.
But Batman never kills him.
He just captures him and then hands him over to the cops.
And it boils down to the fact that the question isn't why doesn't Batman kill him.
The question is, why don't we kill the Joker?
Why do we allow him to get away with this?
Why do we allow abortion?
Justice is a civilizational trait, not an individual calling.
So what are we supposed to do in the meantime when we have this celebration, this just reckless enormity, where we're killing off a generation and then realizing we don't have enough people to replace ourselves?
Well, we need to realize what's going on with all of this.
We need to address the root of the problem.
And I don't think protesting at abortion clinics really does that.
If anything, it might cause a doubling down.
You see, most women that get abortions do not realize that it's sinful.
And it is very sinful.
Up until recently, thank you, alleged Pope Francis.
Up until recently, a woman would have to go to a bishop to receive forgiveness.
Not just any priest could do it if she had an abortion.
It was a very, it still is, a very serious topic.
But most women don't realize that.
Most women have never really thought about it.
In fact, they probably planned to never have an abortion, but it was always there in the back of their mind.
It's been put there as the last, you know, the last string, the backup emergency shoot, which of course encourages them to be slightly more reckless than they would otherwise be.
The same way, if you're driving in a car with anti-lock brakes and airbags, you are going to be driving slightly more recklessly than if you're driving in a car without.
And so they get pregnant when they don't expect it.
They've never put serious thought into it.
And they're desperate.
And on the one hand, you have the anti-abortion activists throwing judgments, throwing anger at them.
And you have the abortionists saying, don't worry, we'll make everything okay.
And so it's an absolutely vicious trap for them to fall into.
And I don't think we're going to win it, well, not through the moral arguments that it's a human life.
Because I'll be honest, I have trouble getting outraged over the morning after pill or against feminine birth control pills, which actually what they do is they prevent a fertilized zygote from adhering to the uterine wall.
They don't stop the fertilization.
They just stop the implantation.
And so it effectively is a morning after pill.
Now, I believe these are wrong, but I have trouble getting morally outraged the way I do about somebody like Kermit Gosner.
And it's really hard to convince people to be morally outraged over this.
So, what's the fundamental problem with the birth control that leads to abortion?
The problem is the idea of sex without consequences.
The problem is that we want to live in a consequence-free world.
We want a world where you can have sex and it's completely divorced from pregnancy, where it's divorced from emotions and love.
We want to pretend that people can have casual sex without having broken hearts, without growing callous, embittered over the years.
We want to imagine that we can have sugar-free sodas and that whatever ailments we develop, the doctor can give us a magic pill.
Abortion is just one facet of this wider societal sickness, when the reality is that casual sex will eventually result in a pregnancy and will hurt both the man and the woman emotionally.
Fact is that if you drink sugar-free pop, well, that aspartame is going to make your body wonder where all the carbs are, and you will get a carb craving.
So, it actually leads to you getting fatter by avoiding those calories, by preventing, pretending that you can eat without eating.
And medical health is no different.
If you want to be healthy, you need to take care of your body.
A doctor can only do so much to alleviate symptoms.
If you break yourself, you are broken for life.
We need to reaffirm this sense of responsibility while also showing where this leads, showing the hope, showing the joy that it is to have a family.
Showing that responsibility doesn't just mean getting yelled at and working your tail off, it means a sense of accomplishment, it means a life you can be proud of, as opposed to the empty happiness of hedonism.
Listen, I would love it if we could have a sane conversation about abortion.
I think it is absolutely clear to any person, to any reasonable person, that once there's brain activity present, that is no longer just a collection of cells.
That's a human being.
I think that's absolutely reasonable and self-evident.
But we're not capable of having that conversation right now because the conversation is between one side that doesn't want to accept responsibility for anything and another side who just wants to blame that other side for all of their problems.
Neither side is taking true accountability, true authorship over their own life.
They're fighting for the sake of fighting.
So, I would say that no, killing an abortion doctor accomplishes absolutely nothing.
It is you saying that your sense of justice is superior to everybody else's.
And that if you had the power, you would make yourself a dictator.
Because if you're willing to make you're making yourself a dictator over one person's life, why not everybody's lives?
That's what you're saying.
Your own opinion is the absolute most important opinion.
You know God's will, and you are willing to kill to do it.
So, no, that's not right.
That's not living righteously.
And ultimately, that's what we need to do: to live righteously, to speak the truth, and to show people what they're missing.
To live good lives ourselves, and then to help others live that good life as well.
If we want to end abortion, it starts with each one of us and our own daily decisions.
Thank you very much for the requested video, Frank.
If any of you want to challenge me on a similar topic or anything else, link down below for that.
Anyways, this has been Arini.
Stay warm.
Deus Volt, folks.
▲
Export Selection