re: #777 Throbert McGee

* * *

For that matter, I don’t think that the sentiment on the sign held by the anti-abortion protester is “extremist”, although I’d wager that the woman herself probably DOES have “extremist” views, given that she went to the time and trouble of bringing such an Off Topic sign to an event where abortion wasn’t even a tertiary focus. But since the “blood of babies” placard avoids calling for a total, uncompromising, nationwide ban on abortion, and merely suggests that God disapproves of the practice, the statement itself is pretty far from representing the radical side of the pro-life movement. QED, the sign isn’t extremist.

Abortion is an issue that tends, I believe, rather readily to produce “extremist” views because there are really only two positions: for or against. One can strive for a “moderate” approach by trying to carve out cases where one is opposed and where one is not opposed (health-of-mother; incest; etc.); however, these cases (in my opinion) tend to be either extremely rare or illusory (health-of-mother, for example: physical health of the mother is almost never threatened by a pregnancy given today’s medical science, while discussion of “mental health” is often a euphemism for explicit choice).

[War, on the other hand, is an example of an issue on which it is much easier to be moderate or extreme at one end or the other (specific wars, less so). Health care reform, of course, tends to produce a continuum of positions varying considerably along the spectrum.]

How one intends to achieve his political ends - i.e., through violence as opposed to political persuasion - is another, separate matter. So, I understand classifying the abortion protester as an “extremist”; I do not understand finding her position threatening. Emphatic, yes.