Thanks for your post. "As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means." If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?
Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That's partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I'm open to a good argument.
Also, when the Southern States seceded, a horrible war was started which cost 620,000 lives, and equivalent of 6,000,000 lives nowadays. Plus, I don't think there are any states which are so prolife that they could be guaranteed to not have abortion if they were independent.
Obama doesn't want to fight the IS. Not necessarily to criticize that policy, but I can't imagine he would want to fight Kansas. It might be more in the national interest, somehow defined, than to fight the IS, but can you imagine Obama deciding to try to convince his boys and girls, so many of whom are from the pro-life states, to invade their home territory and violently quash a secession?
Thanks. There would be practical problems with secession, such as how to divvy up all the nuclear missiles, but the former Soviet states came to a happy solution about that, didn't they? (?!) Regarding arguments, I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?
"As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent
means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means."
If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?
There would be practical problems with secession, such as how to divvy up all the nuclear missiles, but the former Soviet states came to a happy solution about that, didn't they? (?!)
Regarding arguments, I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?