And yet, what he said has provoked some intriguing consideration of just how off base the comment (stand alone and out of context) might have been?
I would initially agree with you. But a poster did make a logical point in pointing out; If you believe abortion is the intentional killing of a human life, then that is murder. If you also support capital punishment for premeditaded murder, then you might be expected to support the execution of the mother who seeks out the abortion.
Mind you, I am not suggesting I support what was said. But I am pointing out that, as proof on this thread, the comment was not "needlessly provocative".
Given the context, it certainly was. Or do you believe that Williamson was somehow going to make Charles Johnson see the light on this issue.
The places for philosophical conversations such as this one are in private and in forums like FR. Not in public arguments with dweebs from Little Green Footballs. Williamson let himself get played. That's what's most disturbing to me about this whole episode.
Mind you, I am not suggesting I support what was said. But I am pointing out that, as proof on this thread, the comment was not "needlessly provocative".
It gets trickier. If those who abort are murdering innocent lives, then to what means is it JUSTIFIED to stop those heinous crimes of murder by any means necessary? Including murdering the murderers.