Tell us how your reasoning would apply in this ongoing case:
“The two women, Patricia Imani and Brianna Herrera, admit that they lay in the offramp from Interstate 5 in an effort to block the Strykers.
Both women said they should be found not guilty because they had to protest and although it was illegal, it prevented a greater harm.
“We have an obligation to resist, not just a right to resist. That is what these protests have been about since we started to do the human blockades against the Strykers,” Imani said.”
http://www.kirotv.com/news/22357712/detail.html
How are you different than these two women? I can’t see any difference.
Well, let’s see...
First of all, my discussion is about abortion and the moral implications of Roeder bringing to justice a mass murderer. These ladies are protesting against the United States on the War on Terror...
So, there are completely different set of circumstances and moral issues here. But, to answer your question directly. Like in the case of Roeder I would not sacrifice myself to fight against the War on Terror...but there are differences...in the former case it would mean sacrificing my life...I am not willing to do that. In the latter case, I am a supporter of the War on Terror so would not sacrifice myself to fight against it.
I am not sure I answered what you wanted, if not please give me some clarification.