"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[MattusMaximus]

But George Tiller was engaged in a practice that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of VIABLE BABYS! There are reports that babies were born and died after suffering the consequences of botched abortions performed by him. There is evidence that he aborted VIABLE babies because of dubious mental health reasons. Thus, he would terminate a baby if a mother came in with a headache or depression.

You know, seeing as how the former AG of Kansas hauled Tiller into court on trumped-up charges such as these, and a jury of his peers found him innocent in a court of law, seems to contradict everything you're saying here.

You seem to be displaying the same atrocious "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" rhetorical tricks that Randall Terry has been using of late. It is disgusting.

Oh yeah, and allow me second what has already been said... a fetus is not a baby. Deal with it, and take your screeching posts elsewhere.

[Robster, FCD]

I think that the pro choice movement wants to scilence all opposition to abortion. Now everybody who called George Tiller a murderer is guilty of his death. But George Tiller was engaged in a practice that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of VIABLE BABYS! There are reports that babies were born and died after suffering the consequences of botched abortions performed by him. There is evidence that he aborted VIABLE babies because of dubious mental health reasons. Thus, he would terminate a baby if a mother came in with a headache or depression.

I'd love to scilence people. If only I knew what that was. :D

You are clearly projecting the desire to silence people onto your opponents. You are free to hold your beliefs, but they harm women, forced to seek out life threatening alternatives to safe medical abortions, and you refuse to even admit that violent language could have some effect on this and other cases.

Tell ya what. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. But your superstitions should not be written into laws that have real negative effects on real people.

You certainly believe the hyperbole regarding Tiller's practice, but do you have evidence of it? A headache? ************. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Do you know how serious depression can be? Any idea whatsoever, how serious it can be? I'm lucky to have only experienced mild depression during my grad school years and it was hellish. I have friends how have attempted suicide, and had some that succeeded.

In this case, or in any case where the mother's health is threatened, the fetus is the enemy. Saving the mother's life is of highest importance.

How about evidence of abortions of viable fetuses? And if you do, what reason do you have for making the uterus your property by imminent domain?

But we are to discuss which side instigages more violence we would make a mistake in not discussing the violence that the pro choice crowd is guilty of. Look at this example, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214328,00.html . Here we have parents forcing a child in to abortion. This goes on in every abortion clinic in america probably. But we never see any pro choice advocate propose a regulation that would prevent parents from forcing abortion on their children.

Perhaps you should read the article. The woman was 19. Her parents had no right to kidnap her, and they were charged as such.

Until a child passes the age of majority, s/he cannot object to any medical procedure without going to court.

Another claim is tha Tiller and the pro abortion crowd always follow the law. That is nonsense. There are plenty of examples of planned parenthood centers refusing to report rapes to the cops in violation of the law. It seems like plannedparenthood is a rape enabler if they aren't reporting 13 year olds who show up pregnant with an older boyfriend to the cops. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54079,00.html .

Interesting, but this was a cold call fantasy study, with no examination of what the laws were in the state and if the clinics would have been in violation. Also, since the fake patient never showed up anywhere, we don't know if the phone consultation was actually a fair reflection of the clinic's policies. Without being able to see their methodology and any followup, I call lying for Jesus.

Are you serious in saying that forcing a young girl into having a child because she was raped is only allowable if the person who victimized her can be punished? You are advocating punishing the victim for not cooperating with the authorities. Classy. :nope:

[JoeyDonuts]

Do we hold William Luther Pierce responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh?

How about J.D. Salinger for the actions of Mark David Chapman?

This thread is practically a case study in availiability heuristics.

[MattusMaximus]

Wow. I just did a google search for "tiller murder terrorism" (http://www.google.com/search?q=tiller+murder+terrorism) and... damn, there are a lot of people pissed off out there. A lot.

Yikes - no wonder many in the anti-abortion movement are now on the defensive.

[Whiplash]

So with all that background, have you or your church brethren ever considered condemning the actions of Christians which promote abortion-is-murder sermons that are bound to incite acts of violence? I'm not talking about condemning the acts of violence. I'm talking about condemning the rhetoric which predictably sets these nutjobs off on their missions?


Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school. I don't remember them speaking about abortion bombings or muders much. Wasn't that more of an issue in the 90's? I certainly never heard a "abortion is murder" sermon, ever. But I did see bumper stickers at times.

But I do remember teachers in school stating that violence against anyone, for any reason (even religious) was wrong, and sinful. And that God was the only one who had a right to judge. They were very big on the whole "beam in your eye" approach. Honestly. This was the pillar of their belief. That we should act as Jesus would. Help anyone in need. Not hurt others. Not steal from others. Act in kindness and for the better of the world.

I admit my school may have been atypical. But my general experience, all throughout life, has been that religious people are mostly tolerant, decent, family type / hard working people. Not bigots, or zealots. I don't think I've ever even met anyone who was anything like some you describe. I've never met one that was anything like the charlatans on TV. Every sermon I sat through was completely boring, and in no way angry or judgemental or inciting anything. Just boring. Oh, and guilt. Lots of guilt. How could I forget that?

You want me to condemn it? You bet. No problem at all. I absolutely condemn it as a terrible crime. Do you want me to get more exercised than that? I am no longer religious, and feel no obligation to take up their slack. But I'll tell you this, if the right get's in an uproar about this, I'll take them on with you guys.


More words of wisdom. Good to see these voices in the thread :)


Thanks Mattus!

[oldhat]

Militia men, radical cleric Mullah Randall Terry's sickening mug on TV, doctors being gunned down in cold blood, the "sovereign citizen" movement...the 90s called, they want their right wing terrorism back.

Do you have any idea how sick you have to be to murder someone -- in their church??

[Steelmage]

Bad argument. It possible to think a Fetus has rights and oppose Abotion through political.peaceful means. And heaven knows that secular political movements have their share of violent wackjobs.

It was more of a poorly written question.

[BTMO]

Do you have any idea how sick you have to be to murder someone -- in their church??

Nope.

Is it sicker than murdering anyone anywhere else?

[MattusMaximus]

Militia men, radical cleric Mullah Randall Terry's sickening mug on TV, doctors being gunned down in cold blood, the "sovereign citizen" movement...the 90s called, they want their right wing terrorism back.

Do you have any idea how sick you have to be to murder someone -- in their church??

Why should doing it in church be any worse than murdering someone anywhere else? They're just as dead.

Sorry folks - derail over.

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school. I don't remember them speaking about abortion bombings or muders much. Wasn't that more of an issue in the 90's? I certainly never heard a "abortion is murder" sermon, ever. But I did see bumper stickers at times.

Wasn't there a small wave of violence instigated by the World Church of the Creator and other such white supremacist organizations during that timeframe? Granted the "Christian" component of their rhetoric wasn't as incendiary as their white supremacy leanings, but I'm fairly sure that they were also pretty violently anti-abortion as well. I wish I could remember the exact name of the group, but I do remember they publicly murdered a confrontational talk radio host that happened to be Jewish.

I think Tom Metzger was associated with them to some degree.

[MattusMaximus]

Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school. I don't remember them speaking about abortion bombings or muders much. Wasn't that more of an issue in the 90's? I certainly never heard a "abortion is murder" sermon, ever. But I did see bumper stickers at times.

But I do remember teachers in school stating that violence against anyone, for any reason (even religious) was wrong, and sinful. And that God was the only one who had a right to judge. They were very big on the whole "beam in your eye" approach. Honestly. This was the pillar of their belief. That we should act as Jesus would. Help anyone in need. Not hurt others. Not steal from others. Act in kindness and for the better of the world.

I admit my school may have been atypical. But my general experience, all throughout life, has been that religious people are mostly tolerant, decent, family type / hard working people. Not bigots, or zealots. I don't think I've ever even met someone who was anything like you describe in some cases. I've never met one that was anything like the charlatans on TV. Every sermon I sat through was completely boring, and in no way angry or judgemental or inciting anything. Just boring. Oh, and guilt. Lots of guilt. How could I forget that?

I think Whip's observations here are spot on. I recall similar experiences in my upbringing... and never once was there ever a hint of this extreme anti-abortion attitude in any church I ever attended. Not once. Nor did I ever recall seeing it advertised widely in public.

But then by the 90s I was through with church, and it seems to me that during that decade the extremist side of the anti-abortion movement gained a lot more traction and started to ramp up the violence. I notice this also seems to dovetail with the rise of the religious right in the Republican party, and I cannot help but wonder if there is some connection to that.

I fear we could be seeing a repeat of those dark days. If the anti-abortion folks (the reasonable ones) are smart, they'll start to root these dangerous nuts out of their own ranks but fast. And having a number of prominent anti-abortion activists speak out publicly against Randall Terry's dangerous rhetoric would be a good start. But my fear is that too many won't speak out, for fear of offending others on their side of the ideological fence, and so the extremists will believe they have free license to continue with their violence.

ETA: I've already spoken with my checkbook. I just donated $100 to Planned Parenthood - take that Randall Terry! :mad:

[Whiplash]

Wasn't there a small wave of violence instigated by the World Church of the Creator and other such white supremacist organizations during that timeframe? Granted the "Christian" component of their rhetoric wasn't as incendiary as their white supremacy leanings, but I'm fairly sure that they were also pretty violently anti-abortion as well. I wish I could remember the exact name of the group, but I do remember they publicly murdered a confrontational talk radio host that happened to be Jewish.

I think Tom Metzger was associated with them to some degree.


I have to be honest, I really don't remember them outright condemning it loudly. But remember, I was in K-8 at this time. That wasn't much of a topic for kids. I was in public school after that, and attended chruch less and less as I approached 18. I insist I never heard anything that made me think in any way was inflamatory or meant to incite violence of any kind. The idea of it actually shocks me. These were some boring, clueless old white people and lots of kids.

I want to repeat, if the right takes the wrong side on this, I'll be with you guys.

[boloboffin]

Murdering someone in their church is more heinous than just killing them. It was just as much an attack on the church that would have Tiller as a member as it was an attack on him.

[Whiplash]

skeptigirl, I just want to say that, even if it's hard for you to believe, there are people in the Christian movement or who act in the name of the Christian movement that disturb and sicken many Christians every bit as much as other people. I think you have a strong tendancy to want to lump them all into one big pot of hate. There are bad people, and many of them high profile. Sure. But there are many many people who are just everyday people who are trying to live a good life, and believe in God. They really aren't out to hurt anyone. And they hate the extremists as much as anyone else.


ETA: For the record, looking into this a bit more and some of the videos, and sites, I am disgusted with what I see. I can't condemn it enough, or the people who follow these animals.

[MattusMaximus]

I want to repeat, if the right takes the wrong side on this, I'll be with you guys.

And if and when that time comes, we'll be happy to have you, Whip.

[themusicteacher]

Isn't it funny how people like Terry say that "if these abortion providers get hurt, they only have themselves to blame" but that it's unpatriotic and stupid to say that America is partially to blame for being attacked by Islamic terrorists? In what way are the two different? Oh yeah: one they're in favor of, the other they're not. Consistency is not these whackjobs strong suit.

[eeyore1954]

Skepticalbeliever, as there is clearly no such thing as a soul, and human beings are all living outside the womb, an unborn human fetus is still part of the mother, and its disposition is only her concern.
How are you so special to be so all knowing as to when life begins. Have you ever as a mother or father felt a baby kick or seen its' "picture" , or heard its heartbeat. I strongly believe that embryo is a human. Most parents that I know felt their baby was alive (dependent but alive). Is it only alive because it is wanted by its parents?
If an embryo is 7 months old (not a human yet according to your standard) and something goes wrong in the pregnancy and the baby is born 2 months early is it then a human? The act of being born makes it human?

Also are you sure "there is clearly no such thing as a soul".
It is the clearly part that bothers me.You can say there is no physical evidence for the existance of a soul. Or I have never seen any thing to make me believe there is a soul. But is it clear that there is no such thing?

[oldhat]

No one's arguing that the fetuses aren't human. And the issue isn't whether or not they're alive, it's the issue that abortions in the third trimester should not be performed for any reason whatsoever and abortion is the same thing as murder.

Tiller wasn't peforming abortions because the parents had a change of heart about raising children or it would have been too likely they would be left-handed or have red hair, he was performing abortions in cases of fetuses with severe developmental problems. Take a look:

http://tinyurl.com/l9hb4e

Admission Criteria

In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

Here are links to descriptions of the conditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patau_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycystic_kidney_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter%27s_syndrome
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/1/76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoprosencephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalocele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrops_fetalis

This isn't depraved Nazi eugenics.

Here's a question anti-abortion people have a hard time answering: What should the penalty be if abortion is made illegal and the woman doesn't go through with a forced pregnancy (and let's not mince words, that's what you want)? Jail? A fine? Should the doctor go to jail? What penalties do you propose?

For the record, I am an atheist but I believe that people do have something like a soul but not in a ghost-goes-up-to-Heaven sense. I also feel life is precious and the decision to perform an abortion on a fetus with one of these conditions is a solemn one and one that no mother (or father for that matter) would ever make lightly.

Murdering someone in their church is more heinous than just killing them. It was just as much an attack on the church that would have Tiller as a member as it was an attack on him.

I agree 100%. To me, there's something extra sickening about a so-called "Christian" killing a man in a house of worship in front of his fellow churchgoers, even if you think the idea of a house of worship is silly.

[Brainster]

So once again if a liberal says that Bush is a murderer, he's inciting people to kill Bush, right?

[Whiplash]

Here's a question anti-abortion people have a hard time answering: What should the penalty be if abortion is made illegal and the woman doesn't go through with a forced pregnancy (and let's not mince words, that's what you want)? Jail? A fine? Should the doctor go to jail? What penalties do you propose?


I'd gather all the most hardend, angry, reactionary members I could find for a good stoning, old school style.

Then I'd get them all stoned, and tell them to lighten the **** up and worry about their own lives and leave judgements in the hands of God, where it belongs.

Then I'd probably run.

[boloboffin]

So once again if a liberal says that Bush is a murderer, he's inciting people to kill Bush, right?

No, we are recommending that he be brought up on charges.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that the pro choice movement wants to scilence all opposition to abortion. Now everybody who called George Tiller a murderer is guilty of his death. But George Tiller was engaged in a practice that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of VIABLE BABYS! There are reports that babies were born and died after suffering the consequences of botched abortions performed by him. There is evidence that he aborted VIABLE babies because of dubious mental health reasons. Thus, he would terminate a baby if a mother came in with a headache or depression.Pure bull crap. You and the rest of your kind are totally ignorant of the facts and that is part of the problem. You listen to the rhetoric and don't spend 5 minutes actually looking to see if what you are being told about the kind of abortions Dr Tiller was preforming was actually true. You just assume in your medical ignorance the crap you've been told.

Dr. George Tiller (1941-2009): Murdered Abortion Provider Remembered for Lifelong Dedication to Women’s Reproductive Health (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/1/dr_george_tiller_1941_2009_murdered)And here, Dr. Tiller followed the law. He was investigated repeatedly, and he didn’t do—all these clips, which says he’s wantonly doing things, it wasn’t true. He was doing it because it was necessary for the life and health of the women. And he was a very careful physician.

We have a fairytale going on, Amy, that there aren’t troubled pregnancies, that every fetus has a brain. I mean, he—some did not. What I mean that is they don’t have a well—they don’t have a head that’s developed. To carry that to term would only hurt the woman. We pretend that women don’t have cancer when they’re pregnant and that the carrying it to term will kill her.

We pretend—I’ll never forget him telling me about a woman who he brought—had to fly in from Manhattan. She was a doctor’s wife, and yet she had a fetus that was growing a tumor that would not only kill her, it would kill the fetus. And there was no—there was no possibility of survival, but he saved her. Why, in a civilized society, would it be necessary to fly her in from Manhattan?

We have allowed ideologues to ignorantly discuss these things, and we have to have doctors—and he did. That speech he gave was to—in our group was to our campus group. And he tried—he had film, slides. He tried to explain what all the medical reasons are for these terminations.

And I really feel we need an education in this country, so that commentators [reference is to O'Reilly spiel about Dr Tiller] who—you know, that was really a diatribe against then-Governor Sebelius. It wasn’t really about what a medical reason for abortion is. We’ve got to take this out of the political arena. And more doctors and nurses have to stand forth and say why this is necessary for women’s survival and health....

Do you seriously believe making abortion illegal and murdering health care providers is the only way or even the best way to actually prevent abortions?

The anti-abortion activists have such narrow minds. The motto/goal of many pro-choice advocates is to 'make abortion safe, legal, and RARE'. Is the only way you think you can decrease abortions is to murder doctors, blow up clinics and overturn Roe V Wade? When abortions were illegal, did they stop? No, in fact, even more people died. Maternal mortality results in over half a million deaths in the world every year and unsafe abortions account for 13% of those deaths.

Why do so many women still die in pregnancy or childbirth? (http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html) A: Every minute, at least one woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth – that means 529 000 women a year. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.

Five direct complications account for more than 70% of maternal deaths: haemorrhage (25%), infection (15%), unsafe abortion (13%), eclampsia (very high blood pressure leading to seizures – 12%), and obstructed labour (8%). While these are the main causes of maternal death, unavailable, inaccessible, unaffordable, or poor quality care is fundamentally responsible. They are detrimental to social development and wellbeing, as some one million children are left motherless each year. These children are 10 times more likely to die within two years of their mothers' death.


But we are to discuss which side instigages more violence we would make a mistake in not discussing the violence that the pro choice crowd is guilty of. Look at this example, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214328,00.html . Here we have parents forcing a child in to abortion. This goes on in every abortion clinic in america probably. But we never see any pro choice advocate propose a regulation that would prevent parents from forcing abortion on their children. Sorry, I missed the part here where some clinic or providers were going along with this forced abortion. :rolleyes:

Another claim is that Tiller and the pro abortion crowd always follow the law. That is nonsense. There are plenty of examples of plannedparenthood centers refusing to report rapes to the cops in violation of the law. It seems like planned parenthood is a rape enabler if they aren't reporting 13 year olds who show up pregnant with an older boyfriend to the cops. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54079,00.html .So you think a person calling in to a clinic asking for confidentiality should be told, "if we help you, we will also call the cops on your boyfriend"?

As a medical provider, I have the education, license and experience to determine if child abuse might be occurring and the obligation to report it. You would not find those same clinics telling the mother of a 10 or 12 yr old pregnant child that the clinic would protect the man who sexually abused the child.

Like it or not, there are young teens who are having sex with guys over 18 and it is not all equal abuse, regardless of the inflexibility of a statute to recognize that. If anything, this is an example of the inability of the law to effectively do what is best medically for a pregnant teen. It's an argument for changing the law, not an argument for accusing the health care providers of aiding and abetting a child abuser.

[Skeptic Ginger]

One additional detail that I haven't seen in this thread (sorry if I've missed it) is that, according to one source (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesuss-jihadis.html), he was one of three doctors in the nation who performed this work (late term abortions). If true, this murderer didn't just murder an abortionist, which would be horrible enough. He murdered one third of the late term abortionists in America.Repeating an except from the above quote because it is worth emphasizing here:We pretend—I’ll never forget him telling me about a woman who he brought—had to fly in from Manhattan. She was a doctor’s wife, and yet she had a fetus that was growing a tumor that would not only kill her, it would kill the fetus. And there was no—there was no possibility of survival, but he saved her. Why, in a civilized society, would it be necessary to fly her in from Manhattan?

[eeyore1954]

No one's arguing that the fetuses aren't human. And the issue isn't whether or not they're alive, it's the issue that abortions in the third trimester should not be performed for any reason whatsoever and abortion is the same thing as murder.

Tiller wasn't peforming abortions because the parents had a change of heart about raising children or it would have been too likely they would be left-handed or have red hair, he was performing abortions in cases of fetuses with severe developmental problems. Take a look:



My understanding was BenBurch was arguing they are not human yet. I could be wrong but I think that is a common belief amongst people who support abortion. Actually I think it is a common belief they are not alive not that they are not human.

Do you believe an embryo in the third trimester is alive? If you do you believe it is ok to terminate its life because of a deformity. If so do you believe it would be ok to terminate its life after birth because of a deformity?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, hold your horses there, SG. I'm all for that, too - but first we need evidence. Don't check your critical thinking at the door.

At the same time, though, I do think that there needs to be a more concerted effort in the media to take scumbags like Randall Terry to task for his "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" kind of behavior when it comes to this kind of thing. I know he's never said for anyone to go out and kill abortion docs or bomb clinics, but he has helped to create an environment where calling them baby killers and whatnot can certainly drive the more extreme & imbalanced in the anti-abortion movement over the edge. For that, Terry needs to be taken to task, I say.
I said if, after the evidence was obtained, but I can see where such a comment would be lost in this flood.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? Can you provide some links?....

Did you really not see this coming?

Google result: murder of abortion doctor is act of terror (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=nog&ei=Ja0kSqm6CoS0MMCVyYQF&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=murder+of+abortion+doctor+is+act+of+terror&spell=1)


Edited to add, I see you discovered this on your own. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Until a child passes the age of majority, s/he cannot object to any medical procedure without going to court. ...Correction, this is not exactly true. I don't have to perform any medical procedure because a parent asks and you'd be hard pressed to find any provider who would perform an abortion on any kid over 14 against the kid's wishes. In fact in most states kids 14 and up can consent to lots of medical procedures related to sexual activity without parental consent. Mostly/(only?) in states where the anti-abortion crowds have been trying to legislate medical care will you find mandatory informing of a parent when a teen seeks medical care for STDs or pregnancy.

And in this state and I assume most states, if you have a baby you can petition the court to make you an emancipated minor.

Now if the child was 10 or 11, you'd likely see the provider going with the parent or guardian's wishes provided it wasn't the abuser.

In between depends on the circumstances and the maturity of the child.

[oldhat]

Do you believe an embryo in the third trimester is alive?

In the third trimester around the 7th or 8th month, I believe medical science has shown that a fetus can start to be considered viable, depending on the conditions of the pregnancy. Short answer is so yes.

If you do you believe it is ok to terminate its life because of a deformity.

Not a deformity like having six fingers but a deformity that is life-threatening or life-ending to the fetus or life-threatening to the mother, like the ones listed above. Short answer is yes.

If so do you believe it would be ok to terminate its life after birth because of a deformity?

Unfortunately, yes, I do. I think there are certain conditions that are so severe (such as a child born without a functional brain -- it happens) to prolong the life is simply prolonging life for life's sake regardless of the child's suffering and that is itself immoral.

But if a baby is born with a condition like Down's Syndrome and can lead a life, albeit with a severe handicap, I don't see any fair argument for killing such a baby after it has been born, all other things being equal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do we hold William Luther Pierce responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh?

How about J.D. Salinger for the actions of Mark David Chapman?

This thread is practically a case study in availiability heuristics.Pierce and Salinger wrote fiction novels. Your analogy fails big time making this a straw man argument. No one has said people are responsible for single expressions of fiction or beliefs.

I, (I think I may be alone here so I won't say we), am talking about Christians taking responsibility to do something to prevent the predictable misuse of the religion they promote on a regular basis.

[MattusMaximus]

My understanding was BenBurch was arguing they are not human yet. I could be wrong but I think that is a common belief amongst people who support abortion. Actually I think it is a common belief they are not alive not that they are not human.

Straw man. You are playing around with the meaning of "alive". Nobody is arguing whether or not a fetus or embryo is living, because all cells are alive; the argument is whether or not they equate to a human baby outside of the womb. I say they don't. Period.

Do you believe an embryo in the third trimester is alive? If you do you believe it is ok to terminate its life because of a deformity. If so do you believe it would be ok to terminate its life after birth because of a deformity?

Yes, yes, and maybe. The "maybe" is dependent upon the nature of the deformity - depending upon the circumstances it could very well be a mercy killing, as there are cases of babies being born only to suffer an excruciatingly painful and short life (on the order of minutes). Hell, there are adults (really old babies, in case you didn't know) who are assisted in ending their lives or have others do it in order to bring an end to their suffering due to illness, etc.

Btw, your skin cells are alive. When you take a shower, you're killing millions! Murderer! :jaw-dropp

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school. I don't remember them speaking about abortion bombings or muders much. Wasn't that more of an issue in the 90's? I certainly never heard a "abortion is murder" sermon, ever. But I did see bumper stickers at times.....It began after Roe V Wade and was amplified during the Reagan years. It grew again when the Republicans fanned the flames to get one issue voters behind Bush.


You want me to condemn it? You bet. No problem at all. I absolutely condemn it as a terrible crime. Do you want me to get more exercised than that? I am no longer religious, and feel no obligation to take up their slack. But I'll tell you this, if the right get's in an uproar about this, I'll take them on with you guys.The point was to condemn more than just the murderer. The point was to condemn the rhetoric that encourages the nutjobs. And to go further by recognizing that pushing the concept of dedication to God has an inherent risk of encouraging nutjobs so one who does push the dedicate your life to God concept should take specific actions to prevent the nutjobs from misusing the religious beliefs.

[eeyore1954]

Straw man. You are playing around with the meaning of "alive". Nobody is arguing whether or not a fetus or embryo is living, because all cells are alive; the argument is whether or not they equate to a human baby outside of the womb. I say they don't. Period.



Yes, yes, and maybe. The "maybe" is dependent upon the nature of the deformity - depending upon the circumstances it could very well be a mercy killing, as there are cases of babies being born only to suffer an excruciatingly painful and short life (on the order of minutes).

Btw, your skin cells are alive. When you take a shower, you're killing millions! Murderer! :jaw-dropp

I wasn't playing with the definition of alive. What I said to be alive is probably what you mean when you say equate to a human baby outsode of the human womb. You say they don't period. But I wonder when does that embryo become deserving of the right to become that human baby outside of the womb. If the embryo is viable is it deserving?


Hell, there are adults (really old babies, in case you didn't know) who are assisted in ending their lives or have others do it in order to bring an end to their suffering due to illness, etc.
I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl, I just want to say that, even if it's hard for you to believe, there are people in the Christian movement or who act in the name of the Christian movement that disturb and sicken many Christians every bit as much as other people. I think you have a strong tendancy to want to lump them all into one big pot of hate. There are bad people, and many of them high profile. Sure. But there are many many people who are just everyday people who are trying to live a good life, and believe in God. They really aren't out to hurt anyone. And they hate the extremists as much as anyone else.I don't find this hard to believe at all.

I'm trying to point out the difference between saying you don't agree, and evaluating the role promoting god beliefs plays in the creation and encouragement of the nutjobs.

That doesn't mean one cannot promote god beliefs (though I admit that would be nice), and it certainly doesn't mean one cannot oppose abortion (everyone has their cutoff for when a fetus is a separate person from the mother and god beliefs are not the only variable there). But it irks me to hear, "I'm not a nutjob, therefore I have no responsibility to prevent nutjobs when I promote my religion."

I have said if one is just a believer and isn't out there promoting god beliefs, such a person bears little or at least much less blame than an evangelizer (most of us could stand to do a tad more for any number of causes). But for every person who promotes Christianity and especially for the promoters of the much more hazardous Evangelical brand, there is a predictable hazard inherent in promoting those god beliefs. If you know you might be encouraging a nutjob, then you should consider doing something to mitigate that hazard. And if you are going to condemn the murderer, how about condemning the damaging rhetoric being used by your colleagues?

[MattusMaximus]

I wasn't playing with the definition of alive. What I said to be alive is probably what you mean when you say equate to a human baby outsode of the human womb. You say they don't period. But I wonder when does that embryo become deserving of the right to become that human baby outside of the womb. If the embryo is viable is it deserving?

Ah, so by your arguments the definition of "alive" is fungible :rolleyes:

Embryos, by definition, are not viable outside the womb. Show me one example to the contrary.

You really need to bone up on your terminology. Try doing that before you attempt to make an argument.

I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

As long as it is inside the woman, it's her call. I may or may not agree with her decision, but there it is. And the fact that you don't have a say in it either appears to really bother you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, we are recommending that he be brought up on charges.This is an important point. There was a lot of rhetoric within the anti-abortion crowd that Tiller was performing illegal abortions. Yet they failed twice to get a Grand Jury to agree. If you continue to incite your flock to pursue punishment and there is no legal recourse, that essentially encourages taking matters into one's own hands.

Calling for a criminal to be charged and tried is a different matter.

[Robster, FCD]

How are you so special to be so all knowing as to when life begins.

I'll tell you what I tell my students.

Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. A fertilized egg is alive. Life does not begin at conception, but rather continues. If you want to ask when the soul enters the body, you are leaving the realm of science and are entering a metaphysical and philosophical realm. You won't find the answer to that question in science.

I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and your superstition regarding its existence has no place in law.

----

Skeptigirl, thanks for the clarification.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My understanding was BenBurch was arguing they are not human yet. I could be wrong but I think that is a common belief amongst people who support abortion. Actually I think it is a common belief they are not alive not that they are not human.

Do you believe an embryo in the third trimester is alive? If you do you believe it is ok to terminate its life because of a deformity. If so do you believe it would be ok to terminate its life after birth because of a deformity?Your terminology is misleading. If a fetus has no brain, we have no expectation it will survive outside the womb. Terminating such a pregnancy is not the same as terminating an infant with a deformity. It is a matter of not risking the mother's life any further (and pregnancy just by itself carries a greater risk than not being pregnant) by carrying a futile pregnancy to term.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Btw, your skin cells are alive. When you take a shower, you're killing millions! Murderer! :jaw-dropp

I do believe that outer layer is quite dead. But your point was valid.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem you're not seeing, Skeptigirl, is that you cannot define Christianity as a product like a gun. You don't get a receipt when you buy it, you don't have to buy a license or ammunition, there aren't any tests you have to take or certifications you have to acquire. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, and there's nothing to be done about it. Anyone can claim to be a licensed driver...but the state can check the validity of that claim. You can't put a safety on faith like you can on a firearm. I addressed this already.

First, I took apathetic god believers out of my list of those responsible. I am speaking of Christian religion promoters. If you are going to promote a religion which you know some nutjobs are going to misconstrue, then you are promoting a product with a well recognized hazard. You have an obligation to address the hazard if at all possible.

I have no desire to go around the mulberry bush arguing with people who don't think producers/manufacturers/promoters are responsible for misuse of the products they promote. It's an argument of values, not one of evidence. In medicine, many of us take responsibility to attenuate the hazards of misusing our products. If you can predict misuse will occur, you should try to address it.

It isn't a product. It's a belief system. It's both.

...I don't know what you want. I gave you a MAJOR national faith group that directly opposes the "religious rights" extremism, and you said it wasn't good enough. This isn't about everyone who has faith, it is about groups that advocate or protest social policies and laws BASED ON faith--it is THOSE groups that promote the kind of extremism we're talking about here, not people who just happen to have faith in God and live their own personal lives according to that. We're talking about specific people who attempt to influence social policy/law. Otherwise, I wouldn't call the murder of an abortion doctor terrorism, I'd just call it murder.There's a continuum from believing in God to dedicating your life to promoting that belief. There's a line there somewhere where believing changes to promoting. The further down the continuum away from promoting one is the less responsible they are.

But the answer, "I/We don't condone what the murderer did," does not by itself automatically absolve people who promote the religion that results in extremism. Condemning extremists is one thing. Taking an honest look at how promoting one's religious beliefs contributes to the creation of extremists is another.

[eeyore1954]

Ah, so by your arguments the definition of "alive" is fungible :rolleyes:

Embryos, by definition, are not viable outside the womb. Show me one example to the contrary.

You really need to bone up on your terminology. Try doing that before you attempt to make an argument.



As long as it is inside the woman, it's her call. I may or may not agree with her decision, but there it is. And the fact that you don't have a say in it either appears to really bother you.

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

[Skeptic Ginger]

You betcha! (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf) This is the same DHS report that the Obama administration withdrew after being attacked by the far right for a variety of reasons, including pointing out that extremist groups often targeted veterans for recruitment (as if that was, somehow, in an alternate dimension riddled with goatees) an attack on veterans.

"Paralleling the current national climate, right wing extremists during the1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic right wing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors."I want to get back to this for a minute.

This murder goes to prove the point of the Homeland Security Report. That's already being discussed in some blogs and op eds. Michelle Malkin's reaction to the report was mind boggling:

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/).

Unfortunately, the right wing attack wolves are as alive and vicious as ever. With the echo chamber talking points attack on this report, condemning it with such BS as claiming the report called returning Iraq vets terrorists is not surprising. Seeing Obama cave to this kind of pressure is unfortunate. I wonder if the timing of this murder won't put the credibility back into this report?

We really need to stand up to the damaging talking points crowd (or should I call them the screaming points crowd?). They've done tremendous damage to this country. The fact they lost the Presidency did not also mean they've gone away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is bornWhat makes you think this is medically what goes on with late term abortions? This is the lie Dr Tiller was trying to combat.

The anti-abortion crowd merely asserts that infanticide is going on. Either these fetuses were not viable as you suggest, or trying to salvage them when the abortion was necessary for the mother's sake was not reasonable.

Is it reasonable to make a 9 yr old carry a pregnancy to term? How about a mother who may die from cancer without an abortion? Is it reasonable to gamble with her life?

When the baby of a mother with cancer or pre-eclampsia that requires terminating the pregnancy is viable, generally a million dollar effort is made to save the infant. Sometimes that effort is unreasonable.

[oldhat]

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

But the fetus does have rights in the third trimester in states with post-viability statutes. It's not black and white.

I see what you're saying, though. "Viability" is pretty vague.

Personally, I begin to bump up the limits of my moral framework in cases such as the fetus having something like Down's Syndrome. Is that in itself enough to warrant an abortion at 6 months? 7 months? 8 months? What if the parents are poor and won't be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars more it will cost per year to take care of and school a child with Down's Syndrome? It's a moral thicket.

[eeyore1954]

I'll tell you what I tell my students.

Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. A fertilized egg is alive. Life does not begin at conception, but rather continues. If you want to ask when the soul enters the body, you are leaving the realm of science and are entering a metaphysical and philosophical realm. You won't find the answer to that question in science.



----

Skeptigirl, thanks for the clarification.

I agree the sperm cell is alive , the egg is alive and the embryo is alive but when if ever does that embryo or later a fetus get a right to not have its life taken away . My question has nothing to do with when a soul enters the body.

I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and your superstition regarding its existence has no place in law.
I never said I believe in a soul.
I was just responding to Ben Burchs statement of fact that there is no such thing

[Puppycow]

LGF doesn't mince words (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33822_Video-_Randall_Terry_Tells_Anti-Abortion_Extremists_Not_to_Back_Down)

Here’s Randall Terry, founder of the extreme anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, with a deplorable statement on the murder of Dr. George Tiller that may make you nauseous.

Quote: “He reaped what he sowed.”
08C9O_4BbcA
This is domestic terrorism, in your face. It’s the equivalent of an Al Qaeda video following a terrorist attack, disavowing responsibility but encouraging more attacks.

[Robster, FCD]

I agree the sperm cell is alive , the egg is alive and the embryo is alive but when if ever does that embryo or later a fetus get a right to not have its life taken away . My question has nothing to do with when a soul enters the body.

Viability is an important feature, as no embryo can make it for long without being in the uterus. Mid 3rd trimester is about that line for a fetus. Acephaly is not viable. Tay Sachs is not viable. The list of nonviable and serious (low quality of life) defects is very high.

Rape, incest and life of mother are also important.

Dr. Tiller, to the satisfaction of a court of law, considered these issues in his cases.

But sadly, innocence of crime was not an excuse. Now we are down to two doctors publicly known to be performing this vital service. But hey, if you have the money, you can travel elsewhere and get one... And if you don't, I hear there are some poisonous herbs you can buy from your local naturopath that will cause abortion... Who knows what else they will do?

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the fetus does have rights in the third trimester in states with post-viability statutes. It's not black and white.

I see what you're saying, though. "Viability" is pretty vague.
....That's the problem when you try to write laws dictating medical practice. The medical professionals have much less problem with such a term.

[Whiplash]

And if you are going to condemn the murderer, how about condemning the damaging rhetoric being used by your colleagues?


First off, I'd rather you not call them my colleagues. I'm speaking about people (families) I knew through church growing up. The only religious people I know now are family memebers, and none of them even remotely involved in anti-abortion issues at all. If you like, I'll give them a ring and ask if they'll prepare public condemnations, and post them later. :rolleyes:


But to your question, in post #264 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4771591&postcount=264) I said:

skeptigirl, I just want to say that, even if it's hard for you to believe, there are people in the Christian movement or who act in the name of the Christian movement that disturb and sicken many Christians every bit as much as other people. I think you have a strong tendancy to want to lump them all into one big pot of hate. There are bad people, and many of them high profile. Sure. But there are many many people who are just everyday people who are trying to live a good life, and believe in God. They really aren't out to hurt anyone. And they hate the extremists as much as anyone else.


ETA: For the record, looking into this a bit more and some of the videos, and sites, I am disgusted with what I see. I can't condemn it enough, or the people who follow these animals.


If you missed it because it was a late edit, my apologies. I can't condemn it enough. Inciting to violence, angry vicious rhetoric, acts of terror. None of it. I have zero tolerance for this. Even if I was still a Christian I would feel the same way. Because I was taught that this sort of thing was wrong (killing, terrorizing, etc).

I don't know what more you expect me to do. I threw off the religion yoke over 20 years ago. I only occasionally take up for them here because I feel that some people go a bit too far in demonizing them, and clearly have a perception of them that is very much diffrerent from my own reality. I know it's only anecdotal, believe what you want. I'm just throwing in my opinions and experiences for whatever little value they may be worth.

[Kopji]

Not to be contrary just to be contrary, (well yes, ok, this is probably true) but the idea that one person could/should sacrifice their life so that many others might live is not unique to a religious framework or mindset. We honor this sacrificial behavior in our secular history books and culture. We raise our children on myths that support and honor the small, helpless minority over the powerful, controlling, 'wrong' majority.

It seems unfair to slather Christianity with a broad brush of blood and guilt as if the roots of human morality had some special home there. I at least, will not give that much credit to religion. Why, given the right circumstances an Atheist is perfectly capable of acting out violently as an extremist. Sure, arguably not as single-minded and unable be deterred by reason as a faith-driven true believer, but secularists can make darn good extremists.

Violent extremists are fairly effective at finding support groups.

The Doctor underestimated the risk, or more likely knew the risk he faced and worked in spite of it. Killed while working unguarded in his church with his wife in the choir, I'm sorry... how quaintly naive.

Hero or villain, this tragedy seemed like a matter of time.

[Kopji]

Of course with conservative Christianity, you work with applause...

[Skeptic Ginger]

First off, I'd rather you not call them my colleagues. .....I think you misunderstood my post which was intended to be a general comment, not a comment specific to your individual experience.

And you implied you were no longer a Christian. Perhaps I misunderstood that? Why would you think my comments applied to an ex-Christian?

And as for colleagues, I meant from one congregation to another, not the people you were describing you went to church with in the past.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[JoeyDonuts]

Pierce and Salinger wrote fiction novels. Your analogy fails big time making this a straw man argument. No one has said people are responsible for single expressions of fiction or beliefs.

Not so much. I believe the Bible is fiction.

And I wasn't making an argument per se. I'm actually on your side of this issue, up to the point where I think you believe Christians are somehow obligated to take preemptive action or pepper their sermons with disclaimers. I was drawing a comparison. McVeigh took to The Turner Diaries the way that anti-abortion extremists take to the Bible. By that I mean reading allegory as instruction, misreading analogies as absolute literal truth. Perhaps this doesn't hold so true in McVeigh's case, since it's pretty obvious what The Turner Diaries is espousing - nay - practically begging for and preaching as an inevitability.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a commandment for Christians to "kill those who abort babies no matter the reason." This is a completely "human" construct, to put it into a Christian context.

If a person with mental illness, through his delusions, comes to believe that a billboard next to the interstate is admonishing him to go on a shooting spree - then I'm afraid no amount of intervention short of professional mental health care is going to stop that spiral.

There was a case down in Texas of a woman who murdered her own baby in the crib by severing its arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser). She believed that God, through a television news report and her pastor, had admonished her to do so. The pastor's name was Doyle Davidson - and while certainly no saint and a bit of a creepy cult-leader figure - did not at any point explicitly tell this woman or even imply that she should murder her newborn. Not surprisingly, mental illness and several other factors played a major role.

Similar case with Andrea Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates#Religious_influence). Although she was under the influence of a charismatic and unscrupulous pastor, he never admonished her to kill her children. She inferred that herself.

[oldhat]

08C9O_4BbcA

OK, Randall Terry is officially insane.

He's basically condoning going in and shooting up churches.

You have to see this to believe it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to be contrary just to be contrary, (well yes, ok, this is probably true) but the idea that one person could/should sacrifice their life so that many others might live is not unique to a religious framework or mindset. We honor this sacrificial behavior in our secular history books and culture. We raise our children on myths that support and honor the small, helpless minority over the powerful, controlling, 'wrong' majority.

It seems unfair to slather Christianity with a broad brush of blood and guilt as if the roots of human morality had some special home there. I at least, will not give that much credit to religion. Why, given the right circumstances an Atheist is perfectly capable of acting out violently as an extremist. Sure, arguably not as single-minded and unable be deterred by reason as a faith-driven true believer, but secularists can make darn good extremists. I'm hoping repetition is actually increasing communication here and not just wasting keyboard strokes.

This is a straw man. No one, especially me, has said Christians or god beliefs were the only basis for growing extremists.

Violent extremists are fairly effective at finding support groups.

The Doctor underestimated the risk, or more likely knew the risk he faced and worked in spite of it. Killed while working unguarded in his church with his wife in the choir, I'm sorry... how quaintly naive.

Hero or villain, this tragedy seemed like a matter of time.All the more reason people promoting god beliefs should expect nutjob problems and should take action to mitigate this known hazard of promoting religion.

[Arus808]

skeptigirl, you're painting a diverse group with a very large brush. Not every Christian is anti-abortion and there's a ridiculous number of sects. How can you blame such a large group for the actions of a few? By this logic, you're going to have to blame the doctor for his own death as he too was a Christian.

Do you blame all Christians for the actions of the IRA or all Muslims for the actions of al-Qaeda?

I was brought up in the Christian faith, but as I grew older, I moved over to being a Baptist.

HOwever, all of my life (basically since I learned about sex which was in the 4th grade) and learned what abortion was, I was always in favor of the woman having a choice


What people need to realize that pro-choice doesn't equal to pro-abortion. We need to get off of that.



AGAIN< despite the beliefs, A MAN murdered another man. LEAVE the rhetoric out of it until mORE is learned about the reasons why the man did it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not so much. I believe the Bible is fiction.

And I wasn't making an argument per se. I'm actually on your side of this issue, up to the point where I think you believe Christians are somehow obligated to take preemptive action or pepper their sermons with disclaimers. I was drawing a comparison. McVeigh took to The Turner Diaries the way that anti-abortion extremists take to the Bible. By that I mean reading allegory as instruction, misreading analogies as absolute literal truth. Perhaps this doesn't hold so true in McVeigh's case, since it's pretty obvious what The Turner Diaries is espousing - nay - practically begging for and preaching as an inevitability.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a commandment for Christians to "kill those who abort babies no matter the reason." This is a completely "human" construct, to put it into a Christian context.

If a person with mental illness, through his delusions, comes to believe that a billboard next to the interstate is admonishing him to go on a shooting spree - then I'm afraid no amount of intervention short of professional mental health care is going to stop that spiral.

There was a case down in Texas of a woman who murdered her own baby in the crib by severing its arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser). She believed that God, through a television news report and her pastor, had admonished her to do so. The pastor's name was Doyle Davidson - and while certainly no saint and a bit of a creepy cult-leader figure - did not at any point explicitly tell this woman or even imply that she should murder her newborn. Not surprisingly, mental illness and several other factors played a major role.

Similar case with Andrea Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates#Religious_influence). Although she was under the influence of a charismatic and unscrupulous pastor, he never admonished her to kill her children. She inferred that herself.These analogies are flawed. There are some analogous bits, but not the ones that are relative.

Is there a direct connection between the mentally ill acts of Yates or Schlosser and the religious messages they misconstrued? No. These qualify as unpredictable events. The interpretation of The Turner Diaries may have even been consistent among McViegh and his friends. But someone like Richard Butler of the Aryan Nations would be more analogous than the author of The Turner Diaries.

The message being preached or written have to be expected or predictable that it would encourage a nutjob in order for the example to be analogous to what I am saying. The language of Randall Terry leaves no doubt he is inciting murder. Look at how few people within the Evangelical community are condemning the rhetoric of Randall Terry along with condemning the acts of the murderer.

Where are the Christians condemning Terry?

Here's a sampling from the top of a Google search of that question.

ChristianNewsWire (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8967610531.html)George Tiller was a Mass-Murderer, says Randall Terry -- We Grieve That he Did Not Have Time to Properly Prepare his Soul to Face God


McClatchy - Abortion foes condemn doctor's slaying, fear backlash. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090601/pl_mcclatchy/3243830) Lot's of condemnation of the murder. There's not one condemnation of Terry reported.

This was at least a counter nutjob message:"This is a great evil . . . for we know that vigilantism is an act outside (God's) moral will," the Rev. Rob Schenck , the president of the National Clergy Council , said in a prayer before the news conference outside the U.S. Supreme Court building.


Anti-Abortion Groups Condemn Tiller Murder, Assess Damage to Cause (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/06/jacqueline_l_salmon_for_the.html?hpid=talkbox1)

There's a comment by a reader:Any anti-abortion organization that doesn't speak out against Terry's rhetoric is inviting the comparison.Here's another:Comments like Randel Terry's reflect what most prolife people are saying online. Even here people pretend to condemn the murder [then] celebrate the death and the dead man burning in hell. ...Then you see this kind of crap:No matter what your opinon of Mr. Terry might be, there is no excuse for blaming him for this murder. If it could be shown that Mr. Terry supplied the fellow weapons, provided plans, or some other dastardly act, matters would differ.


Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/abortion-opponents-discouraged-doctors-murder/) with another holier than thou R Terry quote:"The pro-life movement must not be browbeaten by Obama or the child-killers into surrendering our best rhetoric, actions and images. We hold absolutely no responsibility for his death," Terry said in a written statement.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

AGAIN< despite the beliefs, A MAN murdered another man. LEAVE the rhetoric out of it until mORE is learned about the reasons why the man did it.
We already addressed this. I think the default position is the killer was inspired by Operation Rescue. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to enlighten us.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think the default position is the killer was inspired by Operation Rescue. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to enlighten us.

Personally, I think he was more than inspired by them. The more I learn about this Terry fellow, the more I think discussion of this sort of thing was nurtured if not overtly encouraged.

They may not be completely analogous, but comparing McVeigh is easier since we know a bit more about his history. If you look at it that way, McVeigh was already well on his way towards violent extremism before he visited Elohim City or linked up with Nichols and Fortier. It seems in his case that by intentionally immersing himself in things that validated his growing extremist worldview his lashing out seemed nearly inevitable. What's really disturbing is that it's hard to pinpoint one singular event that pushed him towards what he did - Waco, Ruby Ridge, and his 1,000 dollar tax garnishment are all likely candidates.

We simply don't know enough about Scott Philip Roeder's life to pinpoint what exactly pushed him over the edge to murder. We know he had a lengthy history of being involved with anti-government groups and had a violent history. But Roeder's target was much smaller in scope, and therefore intended to send a much narrower statement. That says to me his breaking point has got to have something to do with the anti-abortion "crusade."

[SezMe]

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/) is a somewhat dated (5 years old) and longish story of a late term abortion. It really puts a human face on the issue.

[ToddH]

My local television station has this story posted on their website. Read the comments at the bottom and you'll get a good idea how many (not all) Christians in my area are reacting...

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local_story.aspx?storyid=64744

Note: I am in no way stating that a majority of Christians belive his murder was justified. But there is a very vocal minority who in fact are happy that he was killed.

[Whiplash]

But there is a very vocal minority who in fact are happy that he was killed.


They disgust me.

[Beth]

Here is a snipped from that bastion of conservatism, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02blame.html?ref=global-home
Burt Neuborne, a professor of law at New York University and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union....“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”

I think he's right.

[Cleon]

Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school.

You must've been a really crappy student.

[thaiboxerken]

Here is a snipped from that bastion of conservatism, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02blame.html?ref=global-home

I think he's right.

Doesn't apply in this case. Operation Rescue is calling doctors who perform abortion murderers. This is hate speech, plain and simple. It demonizes such doctors.

[Whiplash]

You must've been a really crappy student.


:D

[Brainster]

No, we are recommending that he be brought up on charges.

And O'Reilly was not recommending that for Tiller?

[ToddH]

They disgust me.

Try living around and working with these people. I've never told any of them I'm an atheist so they just assume I'm one of them. I hear some absolutely vile things.

[MattusMaximus]

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

Well, if we're going to give a fetus rights, should we start taxing them as well? How about giving them the right to vote? When does a fetus get to start drawing on Social Security? What about counting them in the census? And how would all the paperwork be adjusted to account for the switch from birthday to conception-day? Since we cannot really nail down the exact time of conception, that would make things a bit dicey...

This is what I like to call the "potential human" argument, and it is just plain silly. If we were to let logic like this govern our everyday lives, then we would award licenses to practice medicine to students just as they enter medical school, because they're all potential doctors.

:rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Personally, I think he was more than inspired by them. The more I learn about this Terry fellow, the more I think discussion of this sort of thing was nurtured if not overtly encouraged.

I seem to recall that back in the 90s Operation Rescue and Terry were providing support networks of some kind to the more insane anti-abortion extremists. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're starting to dust off those old tactics, and it seems to me that Terry's comments yesterday served a dual purpose:

1. To warn abortion providers that if they have violence done against them, it's basically their fault, and

2. to let the extremists know that they have a home at Operation Rescue.

[MattusMaximus]

My local television station has this story posted on their website. Read the comments at the bottom and you'll get a good idea how many (not all) Christians in my area are reacting...

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local_story.aspx?storyid=64744

Note: I am in no way stating that a majority of Christians belive his murder was justified. But there is a very vocal minority who in fact are happy that he was killed.

Yup, and if the majority of Christians want to remain silent in allowing nutjobs like these and Randall Terry to hijack their religion by way of such domestic terrorism, then they need to get off their asses and start making some noise!

Thankfully, some of that is occurring... but not nearly enough, imo.

[I Ratant]

...
Note: I am in no way stating that a majority of Christians belive his murder was justified. But there is a very vocal minority who in fact are happy that he was killed.
.
That's true of any issue.
We here are a "vocal minority".
The "majority" pays no attention to what transpires here, and would continue to do so if they were to become aware of it.
Most people are "live and let live", preferring a non-interfering life style, as long as there's no up-close and personal involvement.
The fringe groups like this one (JREF) attract activists and would-be activists and loonies, who may get officially "active" from what they pick up here.
Roeder was immersed in right-wing hate, a small but vocal minority of conservative thought. It's not surprising he went "active" when provoked.

[MattusMaximus]

.
That's true of any issue.
We here are a "vocal minority".
The "majority" pays no attention to what transpires here, and would continue to do so if they were to become aware of it.
Most people are "live and let live", preferring a non-interfering life style, as long as there's no up-close and personal involvement.
The fringe groups like this one (JREF) attract activists and would-be activists and loonies, who may get officially "active" from what they pick up here.
Roeder was immersed in right-wing hate, a small but vocal minority of conservative thought. It's not surprising he went "active" when provoked.

The problem with this argument on this particular issue is that all of the violence and hate-mongering is one-sided. I have yet to see anyone, despite my asking for it numerous times, provide me any evidence of the "pro-choice" side ever encouraging or supporting violence like this against their "pro-life" opponents.

Got any? I didn't think so.

Take that particularly disturbing fact into account, and then get back to me.

[maddog]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ? That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

[MattusMaximus]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ? That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

Umm, no. How can that be attributed to the "pro-choice" movement as opposed to some random jerk? How do you know some "pro-lifer" doesn't have that same bumper sticker as a mean-spirited insult, for example? I can imagine such an insult would be much worse coming from someone who believes abortion is a crime.

Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

You misunderstand my point. I am not talking about whether or not one considers abortion itself an act of violence.

My point is that not one "pro-choicer" has ever committed an act of violence in the name of the "pro-choice" movement against a "pro-life" institution or individual. My question is very specific: when was the last time a "pro-choicer" shot a "pro-lifer" for advocating that abortion be illegal? When was the last time a "pro-choicer" bombed a "pro-life" institution for its positions and actions on this issue?

Get back to me when you have the answer, and don't deviate from the specific question I'm asking. It'll take awhile...

[Cleon]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ?

I can't speak for Matt, but I certainly haven't. And I've been involved in abortion rights activism since 1994 or so.


That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

...No, not really. It's hateful, it's rude, it's childish, but it's not really similar to any sort of support or encouragement of violence.


Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

...And therefore it's justifiable to fight against it with violence, right?

(I realize that's not really fair, but that is where the terrorists' "logic" comes from.)

[MattusMaximus]

Btw, here is an excellent article from former anti-abortion activist and religious right-winger Frank Schaeffer...

How I (and Other "Pro-Life" Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html)
My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America.

In the late 1970s my evangelical pro-life leader father Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop (who soon become Surgeon General in the Reagan administration) went on the road with me taking the documentary antiabortion film series I produced and directed ( Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) to the evangelical public. The series and companion book eventually brought millions of heretofore non-political evangelical Americans into the antiabortion crusade. We personally also got people like Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan and countless Republican leaders involved in the "issue." ...

It's a really good read. He also has some interesting criticisms of the Roe v. Wade ruling, which I share, though he expresses his support for keeping abortion legal.

Food for thought. Pass it along.

[garcia<3]

I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

The fetus is part of the mother, therefore her decision. You would also need to prove that fetuses have the mental capacity to understand that they are alive and separate from the mother.

[I Ratant]

Umm, no. How can that be attributed to the "pro-choice" movement as opposed to some random jerk? How do you know some "pro-lifer" doesn't have that same bumper sticker as a mean-spirited insult, for example? I can imagine such an insult would be much worse coming from someone who believes abortion is a crime.



You misunderstand my point. I am not talking about whether or not one considers abortion itself an act of violence.

My point is that not one "pro-choicer" has ever committed an act of violence in the name of the "pro-choice" movement against a "pro-life" institution or individual. My question is very specific: when was the last time a "pro-choicer" shot a "pro-lifer" for advocating that abortion be illegal? When was the last time a "pro-choicer" bombed a "pro-life" institution for its positions and actions on this issue?

Get back to me when you have the answer, and don't deviate from the specific question I'm asking. It'll take awhile...
.
The mind sets of those pro-choice folks is different than the pro-lifers.
Possibly a lot more tolerant of the things life throws at us, not looking for "the" hard-coded answer, either in some book or from some rabble rouser.
Pro-choicers may have been exposed to the hard-line, and being able to think a bit more clearly, reject it, both the abortion problem and what to do about abortionists.
The situation has a whole of gray on one side, and total black on the other.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The fetus is part of the mother, therefore her decision. You would also need to prove that fetuses have the mental capacity to understand that they are alive and separate from the mother.

What constitutes being a "part of the mother"?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions? - it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

[garcia<3]

What constitutes being a "part of the mother"?

being inside her body, feeding off of her

[Cleon]

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions?

Seems like an irrelevant distinction to me--what difference does it make?

- it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.There's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. In a pro-life world, a woman getting an abortion is committing a crime. In a pro-choice world, a woman choosing to not have an abortion is exercising her choice.

If you'll notice, that's really where the entire difference of opinion lies.

[I Ratant]

What could a pro-choicer say to a pro-lifer?
"You want that kid to live, do ya?
Well, so do I, so I have to kill you!"...
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Seems like an irrelevant distinction to me--what difference does it make?


Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things. I bet some of them are for seat-belt laws, and maybe even restricting what people can do on the property they own. They just think you shouldn't be restricted on having a doctor kill their unborn child.


There's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. In a pro-life world, a woman getting an abortion is committing a crime. In a pro-choice world, a woman choosing to not have an abortion is exercising her choice.

Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.

[garcia<3]

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions? - it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

Well I'm pro choice and I believe in live and let live. So I would say that it applies to all areas of life.

[Cleon]

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things. I bet some of them are for seat-belt laws, and maybe even restricting what people can do on the property they own.

If you want to start a thread on why everyone should be a Libertarian, please feel free to do so. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.

Otherwise, I still fail to see the relevance.


They just think you shouldn't be restricted on having a doctor kill their unborn child.


:rolleyes:


Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.

As I said...It's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. Pro-lifers want to restrict the choice involved, and pro-choicers do not.

[linusrichard]

"Pro choice" and "pro life" are positions on the issue of abortion - specifically, on the legality of abortion. It doesn't make a "pro choicer" a hypocrite if he supports mandatory seat belt laws, just as it doesn't (necessarily) make a "pro lifer" a hypocrite if she supports the death penalty.

ACS, I suspect you already know this, so I'm wondering what is the point of these last few posts?

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you want to start a thread on why everyone should be a Libertarian, please feel free to do so. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.

Otherwise, I still fail to see the relevance.


garcia>3 thaiboxerken seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?

[garcia<3]

garcia<3 seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?

I only speak for myself, and I am not a male.

[A Christian Sceptic]

"Pro choice" and "pro life" are positions on the issue of abortion - specifically, on the legality of abortion. It doesn't make a "pro choicer" a hypocrite if he supports mandatory seat belt laws, just as it doesn't (necessarily) make a "pro lifer" a hypocrite if she supports the death penalty.

ACS, I suspect you already know this, so I'm wondering what is the point of these last few posts?

See post# 339 I just made.

[Cleon]

garcia<3 seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?

You're apparently trying to derail. And no, I'm not going to play along.

[pgwenthold]

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things.

If it doesn't affect me, then, yes, I am pro-choice. Not using your seatbelt can make you an unnecessary burden to society, so it is not a case of not affecting me.

I'd like to hear suggestions of things done on personal property that don't affect me that I oppose. I don't know of any off the top of my head.

[thaiboxerken]

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things.

You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?


Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.

I'm not overgeneralizing. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."

There is evidence to support my opinion as well. There are plenty of violence done at the hands of pro-lifers in the name of anti-abortion. I've yet to read about one case of a pro-choicer violently attacking anti-abortion advocates.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I only speak for myself, and I am not a male.

Gender noted.

[Cleon]

You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?


As is Pro-Life. Randall Terry doesn't have a lot to say on, say, the death penalty. Or the war in Iraq.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You're apparently trying to derail. And no, I'm not going to play along.

garcia>3 thaiboxerken can make an extremely overgeneralized statement on Pro-Life and Pro-Choice stances and imply they extend outward to all choices / restrictions and I can't ask her about it? You're the one that responded to a question / statement I put to him,you then appear to agree and defend his stance (or not - I'm not sure) but then refuse to clarify? OK.

[linusrichard]

See post# 339 I just made.

I think it's pretty clear that garcia<3's post was about garcia<3. She is pro-choice, and in favor of more choices in other areas. There may be a correlation. But there's nothing about the pro-choice position that makes a pro-choice person more libertarian in other areas of life.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I think it's pretty clear that garcia<3's post was about garcia<3. She is pro-choice, and in favor of more choices in other areas. There may be a correlation. But there's nothing about the pro-choice position that makes a pro-choice person more libertarian in other areas of life.

It is clear. The names got switched in the posts.

[garcia<3]

You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?


I agree, so I'll stick to this instead of bringing up how I don't care what people do in private.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?



I'm not overgeneralizing. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."

There is evidence to support my opinion as well. There are plenty of violence done at the hands of pro-lifers in the name of anti-abortion. I've yet to read about one case of a pro-choicer violently attacking anti-abortion advocates.

Thanks for clarifying - that's all I was wondering. Sheesh people. :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.

So - now that we are on the same page that the above statement is just about abortion.

Do Pro-Choicers not want any restrictions on abortion?

[linusrichard]

So - now that we are on the same page that the above statement is just about abortion.

Do Pro-Choicers not want any restrictions on abortion?

Pro-choicers are not a monolith. I think there are plenty of pro-choicers who would be comfortable with bans on late-term abortions. I don't know, though. I would also guess there are pro-choicers who would be comfortable with some restrictions (but not bans) on abortion throughout the pregnancy, as long as they don't make it too hard (the legal term is "unduly burden") to get an abortion. I would guess other pro-choicers would oppose any and all restrictions, regulations, etc., on abortion.

What I think I would say is that pro-choicers, as a group, are opposed to any bans on abortion before viability, and opposed to any restrictions on abortion that are more than minimal in nature, throughout the pregnancy.

HTH.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm not overgeneralising. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."Don't see what's so hard about that to understand, to be honest. There are people on this forum who with a straight face have made it very clear that they are willing to take someone's life if they commit the heinous crime of trying to steal their car. If there exist people who support, and are willing to carry out, vigilante death sentences without trial, judge or jury for grand theft auto, is it really that big a leap to imagine individuals willing to kill for what they perceive to be the murder of a child?

Would the people who would rather end young lives than lose their precious SUV also open fire if they saw someone in the process of murdering a child? You bet they would.

Random note to self: why is it that 'generalizing' is spelled with a z, when 'overgeneralising' is spelled with an s?

Thanks for clarifying - that's all I was wondering. Sheesh people. :)Are you in here asking questions again? You must desist at once:p!

[BenBurch]

And if and when that time comes, we'll be happy to have you, Whip.

That's because he's honest and decent. Which many on the Right just are not.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Does anyone feel like that your caught in a bitch-slapping session between the extremes on both sides of a multitude of issues and that those sides are really close to bringing down the entire thing?

And why the heck is this abortion issue even a Federal issue? It seems like it should be a state by state, city by city issue. Then you can move to the place that best suits you. You don't believe abortion should be legal move somewhere where it's not - you think only certain abortions should be allowed - then move there, you think all abortions should be allowed move there. Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.

I mean - it seems pretty clear that whether abortion is legal or illegal - people still have abortions and people still don't have abortions. OK - you have me there - they have more now when it's more accessible, but still ... (I've seen some statistics that show that it may not be a huge margin of difference. In other worlds, sadly, an awful lot of babies were still aborted when it was illegal. This whole legal/illegal issue seems a moot point at times.)

At least then the focus can be on stopping psychos before they snap instead of pointing figures and throwing rocks at the sidelines and getting distracted from the others who are about to snap over whatever cause they want to use to justify their behavior.

[BenBurch]

I do believe that outer layer is quite dead. But your point was valid.

Depends on how hard you scrub. Ouch!

[Safe-Keeper]

And why the heck is this abortion issue even a Federal issue?I imagine it might be because it's far harder to prohibit abortion then?

[Robster, FCD]

Christian Skeptic, Move there?

Thats your solution?

Are you serious?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I imagine it might be because it's far harder to prohibit abortion then?

Is that a question or statement? I think the question mark is throwing me off.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Christian Skeptic, Move there?

Thats your solution?

Are you serious?

Solution to what? Then I can tell you if I'm serious.

[Safe-Keeper]

I mean - it seems pretty clear that whether abortion is legal or illegal - people still have abortions and people still don't have abortions. OK - you have me there - they have more now when it's more accessible, but still ... (I've seen some statistics that show that it may not be a huge margin of difference. In other worlds, sadly, an awful lot of babies were still aborted when it was illegal. This whole legal/illegal issue seems a moot point at times.)It hasn't got to do, however, with the number of abortions, but with the safety of abortions.

Abortion, the deliberate termination of one's own pregnancy, has been around for millennia, long before modern medicine made it what appears to me to be a rather safe procedure. This means that people in no way need an abortion clinic to have an abortion; there exist natural, home-brewed alternatives. Alternatives such as forcing a clothes hanger up your vagina, throwing yourself down a flight of stairs, taking a scalding-hot bath, or having someone deliver powerful blows to your stomach.

What's the problem with these methods? You guessed it - they're anything but safe and painless. So what does an abortion ban accomplish? People who can afford to make the trip to another city, state or country, and pay for the treatment, do so. Those who can't, go to unsafe back-alley clinics or resort to the above methods. Direct result - hospitals are flooded with women in need of emergency treatment after horrific 'do-it-yourself' abortions.

So on balance, legal abortion is by far a preferrable alternative.

[garcia<3]

Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.



This makes no sense. Is someone forcing you to get an abortion, I thought you were a male?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This makes no sense. Is someone forcing you to get an abortion, I thought you were a male?

Is the legality of abortion a federal issue which all states have to follow? If yes - then states and cities (and the people living in them) do not have the choice to make it illegal. An opposing view is being forced on them.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It hasn't got to do, however, with the number of abortions, but with the safety of abortions.


My statement was about the numbers. Which is how Pro-Lifers are approaching the issue.

[oldhat]

Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.


Pro-choicers do not force others to have an abortion.

Pro-lifers want to force women to be pregnant.

That's the difference. False equivalence.

[garcia<3]

Is the legality of abortion a federal issue which all states have to follow? If yes - then states and cities (and the people living in them) do not have the choice to make it illegal. An opposing view is being forced on them.


The law does not say you have to get an abortion! It leaves it up to the individual to choose what is best for them. A view is just a view. This view doesn't harm you in anyway.

[linusrichard]

Is the legality of abortion a federal issue which all states have to follow? If yes - then states and cities (and the people living in them) do not have the choice to make it illegal. An opposing view is being forced on them.
Is this a problem? If you replace "abortion" with "segregation," is it still a problem?

[oldhat]

Is the legality of abortion a federal issue which all states have to follow? If yes - then states and cities (and the people living in them) do not have the choice to make it illegal.

Shorter A Christian Skeptic: Since taking away choices is bad, giving women a choice to have an abortion or not takes away the choice of others to take away that choice.

Strong argument!

[Cleon]

Is the legality of abortion a federal issue which all states have to follow? If yes - then states and cities (and the people living in them) do not have the choice to make it illegal. An opposing view is being forced on them.

The same is true of the Civil Rights Act. For the Southern states, "an opposing view was forced on them."

Horrible, isn't it?

[A Christian Sceptic]

The law does not say you have to get an abortion! It leaves it up to the individual to choose what is best for them. A view is just a view. This view doesn't harm you in anyway.

If the citizens of South Dakota want Abortion to be illegal - why shouldn't they have the right? It's their state. You don't need to live there and if you do live there you can move away or work to make it legal. Or heck - do it by towns. That would even be better. This town - illegal. That town - legal. That town - more restricted. That town - less restricted.

[MattusMaximus]

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions? - it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

As I like to say, "pro-lifers" are really "pro-choice"... it's just that they want to choose for everyone else ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Is this a problem? If you replace "abortion" with "segregation," is it still a problem?

Yes - to many people it is a problem. Not only that - there are Federal laws that aren't even in the same area as Abortion and Segregation - and those are a problem too, to many, many people.

[Cleon]

If the citizens of South Dakota want Abortion to be illegal - why shouldn't they have the right? It's their state. You don't need to live there and if you do live there you can move away or work to make it legal. Or heck - do it by towns. That would even be better. This town - illegal. That town - legal. That town - more restricted. That town - less restricted.

If the citizens of South Dakota want to throw Mexican immigrants into concentration camps - why shouldn't they have the right? It's their state. You don't need to live there and if you do live there you can move away or work to make it legal.

Etc, etc.

Your "logic" can be used to justify pretty much any damn thing.

[oldhat]

If the citizens of South Dakota want Abortion to be illegal - why shouldn't they have the right? It's their state. You don't need to live there and if you do live there you can move away or work to make it legal. Or heck - do it by towns. That would even be better. This town - illegal. That town - legal. That town - more restricted. That town - less restricted.

Women can be second class citizens not capable of making a medical decision in one state but they're first class citizens capable of making a medical decision in another?

This isn't like deciding to sell booze or not, equal access to medical care is a human right.

[MattusMaximus]

If the citizens of South Dakota want Abortion to be illegal - why shouldn't they have the right? It's their state. You don't need to live there and if you do live there you can move away or work to make it legal. Or heck - do it by towns. That would even be better. This town - illegal. That town - legal. That town - more restricted. That town - less restricted.

It's a moot point. The citizens of SD have voted twice now to keep abortion legal in their state.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The same is true of the Civil Rights Act. For the Southern states, "an opposing view was forced on them."

Horrible, isn't it?

It caused The Civil War - America's deadliest war. You don't think that was horrible?

[Cleon]

It caused The Civil War - America's deadliest war. You don't think that was horrible?

The Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, caused the Civil War, which started in 1861? Call me skeptical.

[MattusMaximus]

.
The mind sets of those pro-choice folks is different than the pro-lifers.
Possibly a lot more tolerant of the things life throws at us, not looking for "the" hard-coded answer, either in some book or from some rabble rouser.
Pro-choicers may have been exposed to the hard-line, and being able to think a bit more clearly, reject it, both the abortion problem and what to do about abortionists.
The situation has a whole of gray on one side, and total black on the other.

Understood. And I also note that still no one here has been able to find one single example of "pro-choice" violence oriented towards "pro-lifers" for the views they hold on these issues.

'Nuff said.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's a moot point. The citizens of SD have voted twice now to keep abortion legal in their state.

Glad you caught the irony. ;) Any idea what would happen if they had voted it illegal under the current Federal Laws?

[Cleon]

Glad you caught the irony. ;) Any idea what would happen if they had voted it illegal under the current Federal Laws?

It would've been nullified as soon as it went to court. Which it would, rather quickly.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, caused the Civil War, which started in 1861? Call me skeptical.

haha. I misread. I was thinking of the Act prohibiting further slavery that was passed before the Civil War.

[MattusMaximus]

Glad you caught the irony. ;) Any idea what would happen if they had voted it illegal under the current Federal Laws?

Do you have a point besides derailing the thread? :rolleyes:

[sugarb]

:id:

You know...there is no way to enter into a discussion involving abortion without there being a whole lot of thoughtlessness and a whole lot of cruelty. Emotions run high, and they do so for many, many reasons--most of which people aren't able to necessarily articulate to the satisfaction of anyone who pigeonholes them into some arbitrary, pre-defined category. So let me elaborate here, if I may.

To understand where I am coming from, I have to go back many years in my life, back to when I was doing my best to be that good little Christian girl everyone expected me to be. When one lives according to "God's way", and does everything "right", one has a sort of naive expectation as to what life SHOULD bring.

After one miscarriage, it might be easy to belive that God decided it wasn't time yet. Everyone says the same things to you: oh, there'll be more. Oh, your baby is with God now. Blah blah blah blah blah. The emotional state that one is left in is only further complicated by trying to understand why God, for whom you've carefully constructed your life in a way to be pleasing toward, would feel a need to make you hate your body, and feel a need to take your child. The belief system, though, encourages a NEED to understand life in those terms.

After two miscarriages, it gets really easy, when the same people are telling you the same things, to become angry at people who are willingly "getting rid of" what God is, for some reason, seemingly happy to take away from you. The God people start looking at you differently, though...like something is wrong with you for not being happy and feeling blessed that God thought YOUR child was so damned special, he just had to have it in Heaven to amuse him.

After three miscarriages, something snaps. There is no longer any way to believe that God has anything at all to do with this. When you dare say it, and make it clear that you finally BELIEVE it, the God people no longer have ANYTHING to say. The decent God people respect your sorrow and pain, and they stop telling you the "God has your baby now" crap. The evil God people start telling you that you're obviously not good enough to be a mother, but maybe if you repent and apply yourself to being "better", you too can be blessed with a child late in life like so many women in the Bible.

You go home, and you think about these things constantly. And one day, out of the blue, it hits you. The evil God people think it is okay for God to take a child from the womb, because if God does it, it MUST be okay. Yet...why, then, am I encouraged to be angry with women who choose to "get rid of" the same thing God can for whatever reason just take away?

I am not a stupid person. In fact, though I rarely compliment myself, I'm quite intelligent, thank you very much...and I see absolutely no irony in anything I have said. I do NOT need to read the Bible to understand why anyone would find God, or Jesus, cruel. I have lived it. But it wasn't God, or Jesus, being cruel. It was the God people, some of them, in their misguided need to be his voice.

Any person can take anything they wish to take from the Bible. One person's interpretation is of no more meaning to me than another's. At no point in time does anyone's interpretation address the realities of pregnancy and loss (by choice or circumstance). I have never met a woman that chose to have an abortion that wasn't as absolutely confused and in pain as myself, who did not make that choice. For myself, I can say that I WISH I'd had a "choice". I envy those that do, in fact. Part of disengaging with religion, for me, had a lot to do with this very topic. Not the idea that some people presume to speak for God, because many, many others were very kind and freely admitted they could not answer my many questions about the many contradictions inherent in the many interpretations of the faith I held dear.

But those answers also didn't come from the equally unfeeling non-believers that dismissed my losses as nothing more than "science". So if I seem to fall in the middle of this debate...well...you're damned right I do. Pregnancy (planned or unplanned) and loss (chosen or not chosen) deserves more dignity than these debates offer. It is not helpful to women to be told they are evil murderers. But it is also not helpful to ignore the reality of the life they are making a very, very difficult choice to end. And the debate has lost ALL dignity, for the women involved, because of both extremes. It IS a life, it IS a choice (often made because of no alternatives), and frankly, no one should EVER have to explain, to anyone, the "whys" about something so personal.

Yet we harp and harp and fight and fight and both sides insult and imply things about the other...and we seem to act like the women actually affected by the issue, the women who for whatever reason have to make these choices, are totally unaffected by the words we say, and how we say them. To tell a woman who chose to have an abortion ten years ago that what she aborted wasn't "really" a life, when she may be having terrible regrets, is just as cruel as the people who told ME that I should get over my loss and be happy God had my babies.

If I get upset, or seem to contradict myself, at least, hopefully, someone will understand where I am coming from now. This is a serious issue, and it affects many, many women. Not only those who have had abortions...but any woman that has lost a much wanted pregnancy. It is worthy of more dignity than many are offering it. And if people can't see that, then I have to ask: what do their opinions matter, anyway? They obviously really don't care. If it matters more to attack Christianity, for example, than focus on what amounts to a hate group that is trying to affect the choice women have...well, then it isn't about the women, it's about having someone or something to attack. You've fallen into exactly the trap that was laid for you, because if it stays a religious issue, the rights of demonstrators will always be protected. And women going through very hard times will always be persecuted and made to feel...there are no words for it.

If the religious extremists don't realize what they are saying about their own God when they say that ending pregnancy is murder, then I guess that's their own stupidity or ignorance...but it's willful ignorance and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Except offer a little more thought and dignity than that.

I hope that doesn't trip your irony meter again.

[boloboffin]

When O'Reilly ambushed Tiller (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906010035).

And his attorney (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906010038).

[A Christian Sceptic]

Shorter A Christian Skeptic: Since taking away choices is bad, giving women a choice to have an abortion or not takes away the choice of others to take away that choice.

Strong argument!

Many Pro-Lifers are seeing this as a States Rights issue which is being forced upon them by the Federal Government (and those in other Pro-Choicers in other states).

If you miss that you'll be missing a large component of the friction happening between the two sides.

[boloboffin]

The last nationwide conflict over State's Rights worked out so well in this country.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Do you have a point besides derailing the thread? :rolleyes:

How am I derailing? Trying to understand various sides / motivations is exactly what this overall topic is about. Oh yeah ... and trying to understand psycho-killers.

[pgwenthold]

Many Pro-Lifers are seeing this as a States Rights issue which is being forced upon them by the Federal Government (and those in other Pro-Choicers in other states).


Yeah, right.

More accurately, many pro-lifers are hiding behind the state's rights issue claim in their desparate attempt to legitimize themselves.

It's like the morons who claim that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Understood. And I also note that still no one here has been able to find one single example of "pro-choice" violence oriented towards "pro-lifers" for the views they hold on these issues.

'Nuff said.

What qualifies as violence?

[Cleon]

What qualifies as violence?

If you have to ask, you've proven his point.

[sugarb]

Understood. And I also note that still no one here has been able to find one single example of "pro-choice" violence oriented towards "pro-lifers" for the views they hold on these issues.

'Nuff said.

Unfortunately, MattusMaximus, there has been some, but I'm too tired to search for better sources than those that come up quickly in google. I don't trust pro-life sites enough to use them as a source...sorry, been a long day. But it has happened. Mostly kicking and hitting, I think, but I seem to recall one knife brandishing. Again, extremists, as with the pro-life violence.

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you have to ask, you've proven his point.

No - sorry - I haven't proven his point.

Because to him he might think only killing is violence.

He might also think that pushing someone over is violence.

He might think spitting on someone is violence.

He might think yelling at someone is violence.

I don't know what he thinks.

[Cleon]

No - sorry - I haven't proven his point.

Because to him he might think only killing is violence.

He might also think that pushing someone over is violence.

He might think spitting on someone is violence.

He might think yelling at someone is violence.

I don't know what he thinks.

It doesn't matter.

We have documented examples of members of the "pro-life" movement assassinating doctors and escorts, bombing clinics, and other acts of good old-fashioned terrorism.

There is no corresponding level of violence on the pro-choice side. Even if you can find someone who was pushed, kicked, or shoved, it just doesn't compare with "pro-life" terrorism.

The fact that you have to ask what's meant by "violence" essentially concedes this point.

So, yeah, by asking, you've proven his point. Sorry.

[BenBurch]

However, I am hoping the STATE does some violence to this shooter. I wish I could be on the jury.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It doesn't matter.

We have documented examples of members of the "pro-life" movement assassinating doctors and escorts, bombing clinics, and other acts of good old-fashioned terrorism.

There is no corresponding level of violence on the pro-choice side. Even if you can find someone who was pushed, kicked, or shoved, it just doesn't compare with "pro-life" terrorism.

The fact that you have to ask what's meant by "violence" essentially concedes this point.

So, yeah, by asking, you've proven his point. Sorry.

Nope. Sorry - you're wrong. He never used the phrase "corresponding level of violence". He just said violence - so me asking him to clarify what he actually meant is highly appropriate - because he very well may have meant "corresponding level of violence " or he may have meant "grabbing someone in a headlock and slamming them to the ground."

So MattusMaximus - what's your definition of violence?

[Cleon]

Nope. Sorry - you're wrong. He never used the phrase "corresponding level of violence". He just said violence - so me asking him to clarify what he actually meant is highly appropriate - because he very well may have meant "corresponding level of violence " or he may have meant "grabbing someone in a headlock and slamming them to the ground."

It doesn't matter how many nits you pick. You still don't have a point, here.


So MattusMaximus - what's your definition of violence?

It still doesn't matter, but this - again - seems like just an attempt to derail. Please stop.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It doesn't matter how many nits you pick. You still don't have a point, here.


He wants someone to post some sort of proof of violence against a Pro-Lifer by a Pro-Choicer. How can someone do that if he doesn't first clarify what he means by violence?



It still doesn't matter, but this - again - seems like just an attempt to derail. Please stop.

Please stop asking me to please stop when I'm asking someone else a question. You've done that multiple times.

[thaiboxerken]

Does anyone else see a pattern amongst people who don have have reasonable arguments to support their positions? It seems to me that such people start to debate the semantics of words of which they would know the definition of in any other situation. In this thread, "violence", has become the "ambiguous word" that someone doesn't understand. In another thread, "torture", is hard to define. Hmmmm. I guess if one cannot have a discussion using reasonable assertions and arguments, one must try to win by being obtuse, eh?

[oldhat]

Many Pro-Lifers are seeing this as a States Rights issue which is being forced upon them by the Federal Government (and those in other Pro-Choicers in other states).

If you miss that you'll be missing a large component of the friction happening between the two sides.

Gee, that's funny, because I never see those nuts outside clinics with placards that say anything about Plessy v. Ferguson or quotes from the Federalist Papers.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Does anyone else see a pattern amongst people who have to reasonable arguments to support their positions? It seems to me that such people start to debate the semantics of words of which they would know the definition of in any other situation. In this thread, "violence", has become the "ambiguous word" that someone doesn't understand. In another thread, "torture", is hard to define. Hmmmm. I guess if one cannot have a discussion using reasonable assertions and arguments, one must try to win by being obtuse, eh?

Give me your definition of violence then.

I find an odd pattern here of people making statements as fact and then when questioned on them they clam up and don't clarify. Why is that?

[sugarb]

He wants someone to post some sort of proof of violence against a Pro-Lifer by a Pro-Choicer. How can someone do that if he doesn't first clarify what he means by violence?




Please stop asking me to please stop when I'm asking someone else a question. You've done that multiple times.

I'd say that unless you can come up with a murder, and a history of attempted murders, and bombings...you're pretty much out of luck trying to compare the violence of pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Face it...the pro-life movement, at the extreme end, is incredibly violent and there is no way to label them other than terrorists. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between the two movements: one wants to preserve the laws, one wants to change them--and an element of THAT movement is willing to use any means they deem necessary (lawful or not) to do so.

Comparing shoves and kicks (which happen in many demonstrations when people get so worked up they can't control themselves any longer--mob mentality, if you will) to planned bombings and assaults is kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, that is.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Gee, that's funny, because I never see those nuts outside clinics with placards that say anything about Plessy v. Ferguson or quotes from the Federalist Papers.

Do most Pro-Lifers protest with placards outside buildings or anywhere?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'd say that unless you can come up with a murder, and a history of attempted murders, and bombings...you're pretty much out of luck trying to compare the violence of pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Face it...the pro-life movement, at the extreme end, is incredibly violent and there is no way to label them other than terrorists. For one thing, there is a HUGE difference between the two movements: one wants to preserve the laws, one wants to change them--and an element of THAT movement is willing to use any means they deem necessary (lawful or not) to do so.

Comparing shoves and kicks (which happen in many demonstrations when people get so worked up they can't control themselves any longer--mob mentality, if you will) to planned bombings and assaults is kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, that is.

I'm not comparing anything to anything - but MattusMaximus made a statement and I'm asking for clarification. His point seems to be Pro-Choicers never do violence, Pro-Lifers do. I'd like to know if he means kill or something else by his use of the word violence?

[Cleon]

I'm not comparing anything to anything - but MattusMaximus made a statement and I'm asking for clarification. His point seems to be Pro-Choicers never do violence, Pro-Lifers do. I'd like to know if he means kill or something else by his use of the word violence?

It still has no bearing on the topic at hand. Which means...you're derailing. Again.

[Robster, FCD]

Solution to what? Then I can tell you if I'm serious.

sigh

And why the heck is this abortion issue even a Federal issue? It seems like it should be a state by state, city by city issue. Then you can move to the place that best suits you. You don't believe abortion should be legal move somewhere where it's not - you think only certain abortions should be allowed - then move there, you think all abortions should be allowed move there. Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.

[Lucky]

Pro-choicers are not a monolith. I think there are plenty of pro-choicers who would be comfortable with bans on late-term abortions. I don't know, though. I would also guess there are pro-choicers who would be comfortable with some restrictions (but not bans) on abortion throughout the pregnancy, as long as they don't make it too hard (the legal term is "unduly burden") to get an abortion. I would guess other pro-choicers would oppose any and all restrictions, regulations, etc., on abortion.
I think that would be a most uncommon view - probably only an extreme libertarian would hold it (so might be more common in the US). Most people in the UK are pro-choice, but I don't know anyone who would argue that, for example, a woman should have the unrestricted right to terminate a healthy 35-week fetus because, say, she's just received the offer of a promotion and decided to delay having a baby.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It still has no bearing on the topic at hand. Which means...you're derailing. Again.

Was MattusMaximus's post on topic? If yes - then my request for his clarification was on topic.

[A Christian Sceptic]

sigh

Thanks - that helps clear things up alot.

[Robster, FCD]

So. Is that your opinion? That if you want access to women's reproductive health care, even if you don't know that you want it now, and might find it in the future, you need to move to a state where abortion is legal? I should choose to live where reproductive rights and health care are available, even if that isn't where I have a job?

[Nogbad]

What qualifies as violence?

Presumably ganging up on people outside their houses or place of work or harassing family members etc., (No idea if the pro choice people in the US do this or not).

Taking a swing at someone who has come to scream abuse at you outside your door doesn't count imho.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So. Is that your opinion? That if you want access to women's reproductive health care, even if you don't know that you want it now, and might find it in the future, you need to move to a state where abortion is legal? I should choose to live where reproductive rights and health care are available, even if that isn't where I have a job?

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

[sugarb]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

How do you come to that? Letting states decide (which I confess to at one time thinking was the best solution myself) means that decisions will be made in part at least based on the resources to handle the influx of extremists who would then be able to launch a more targeted campaign, state by state.

Beyond that, are women different from state to state? Should their rights vary? Are there other medical procedures that you think should be up to each individual state?

[Robster, FCD]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

[BTMO]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

Well, they could just not **** in the first place, or use a rubber johnny...

[A Christian Sceptic]

How do you come to that? Letting states decide (which I confess to at one time thinking was the best solution myself) means that decisions will be made in part at least based on the resources to handle the influx of extremists who would then be able to launch a more targeted campaign, state by state.


I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part.


Beyond that, are women different from state to state? Should their rights vary?


I confess I've never understood why killing (a baby / fetus / potential human / whatever you want to call it) is a right. This thread is probably not the place to educate me on that - we'd probably get accused of derailing this thread.


Are there other medical procedures that you think should be up to each individual state?

Yeah - I think assisted suicide and medical marijuana. I'm sure there are others.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you don't have a response to the obvious hardship placed on real people with real problems other than to fall back on "states rights?"

Wealthy people can travel to have quality reproductive health care, but poor people deserve to be forced to have a child if they have the bad luck to live in the wrong state?

Why do you have so little faith in the people in the various states to make the best choice?

[oldhat]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

Er, no, there are no "extremes." There's one extreme, the right wing element in this country that thinks firebombing and murder is acceptable and their enablers and apologists in the mainstream media like Bill O'Reilly.

There's no parity here. Stop making things up.

[Cleon]

Why do you have so little faith in the people in the various states to make the best choice?

Jim Crow.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Er, no, there are no "extremes." There's one extreme, the right wing element in this country that thinks firebombing and murder is acceptable and their enablers and apologists in the mainstream media like Bill O'Reilly.
There's no parity here. Stop making things up.

Your statement is an example of the other extreme I'm talking about! Check out the beginning of the thread for even more examples.

[oldhat]

Your statement is an example of the other extreme I'm talking about!

Passionate words on the internet = killing people.

Gotcha. :boggled:

[A Christian Sceptic]

Passionate words on the internet = killing people.

Gotcha. :boggled:

I've never equated the extremes with killing people. In fact - I'd say most people in the extremes on either side will never kill someone. But they are dragging us into their bitch-slapping sessions.

[BenBurch]

"States Rights" huh? Can you say "Code Word?"

[Cleon]

I've never equated the extremes with killing people. In fact - I'd say most people in the extremes on either side will never kill someone.

However, the point of this thread is that with one extreme, you do have people killing. You do have people bombing. You do have people engaging in acts of terror. You do not have this on the other side of the issue at all.

[A Christian Sceptic]

"States Rights" huh? Can you say "Code Word?"

So - you think states should have no rights? :confused:

Or only no rights on only "certain" issues you agree with?

[oldhat]

You're embarrassing yourself.

[applecorped]

.. is that with one extreme, you do have people killing. You do have people bombing. You do have people engaging in acts of terror. You do not have this on the other side of the issue at all.


The Weather Underground??:boxedin:

[A Christian Sceptic]

However, the point of this thread is that with one extreme, you do have people killing. You do have people bombing. You do have people engaging in acts of terror. You do not have this on the other side of the issue at all.

And right away in this thread you have people immediately blaming entire segments of the population for this psycho's actions.

[MattusMaximus]

What qualifies as violence?

Don't be an idiot. Of course I mean the same kind in regards to abortion extremists as outlined all through this thread and at this link:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/clinic_violence/

You know, the good ol' standbys of domestic terrorism... bombing and shooting in an effort to intimidate.

[Cleon]

The Weather Underground??:boxedin:

Well, aside from the fact that this was several decades ago, they weren't involved in abortion rights one way or the other. So...no.

[oldhat]

And right away in this thread you have people immediately blaming entire segments of the population for this psycho's actions.

"It is really tragic how right wingers are often associated with other right wingers who say the exact things they do but go shoot people. This is so unfair." - El Cid

[A Christian Sceptic]

You're embarrassing yourself.

Me? So far I've gone round and round with people refusing to clarify the words they use and round and round with people telling me to stick to the topic. And then people like you ready to blame entire segments of the population because of one guys actions. And all I wonder is why it's a Federal Issue? So far people seem to say because it's equivalent to racism / slavery and that abortion is some sort of right. So - thanks for the good input - sorry if I missed someones insight between these other posts.

[SezMe]

Nope. Sorry - you're wrong. He never used the phrase "corresponding level of violence". He just said violence - so me asking him to clarify what he actually meant is highly appropriate - because he very well may have meant "corresponding level of violence " or he may have meant "grabbing someone in a headlock and slamming them to the ground."

So MattusMaximus - what's your definition of violence?
I can't speak for MM, but for me your just avoiding the issue. Here's a suggestion. YOU define what violence is in the context of this thread then give us an example or two of it.

IOW, stop weasling and start engaging.

[Cleon]

And right away in this thread you have people immediately blaming entire segments of the population for this psycho's actions.

I addressed that earlier. But your attempt at deflection doesn't change the fact that the murders, terrorism, etc. are all coming from one side of the abortion debate.

[MattusMaximus]

Unfortunately, MattusMaximus, there has been some, but I'm too tired to search for better sources than those that come up quickly in google. I don't trust pro-life sites enough to use them as a source...sorry, been a long day. But it has happened. Mostly kicking and hitting, I think, but I seem to recall one knife brandishing. Again, extremists, as with the pro-life violence.

If true, that is clearly inappropriate and I hope that individual got their just desserts through our legal system. However, it doesn't equate to what I keep asking for... evidence of "pro-choicers" bombing & shooting "pro-life" advocates in an effort to intimidate them. I don't see how I can be any more clear on this particular point, and anyone who continues to ask for "clarification" is obviously acting the fool in an effort to avoid facing facts and answering the damn question.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Don't be an idiot.

Thanks for being so kind and willing to discuss. I love the tolerance and openness here.


Of course I mean the same kind in regards to abortion extremists as outlined all through this thread and at this link:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/clinic_violence/

You know, the good ol' standbys of domestic terrorism... bombing and shooting in an effort to intimidate.

And thanks for clarifying. I won't post what I found then. That's all. Was it so hard to clarify? wow.

What the hell's with the hostility here? You'd think I was for making abortion illegal or something.:boggled:

Wow - just wow.

[applecorped]

Well, aside from the fact that this was several decades ago, they weren't involved in abortion rights one way or the other. So...no.

I never said they were very good at it but a pathetic attempt could be made to insinuate that they were attempting to be verrrrrrryyyyyyy late term abortionists.:cool:

[Cleon]

I never said they were very good at it but a pathetic attempt could be made to insinuate that they were attempting to be verrrrrrryyyyyyy late term abortionists.:cool:

:nope:

[applecorped]

I addressed that earlier. But your attempt at deflection doesn't change the fact that the murders, terrorism, etc. are all coming from one side of the abortion debate.

Nobody is dying on the other side? Hmmm.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I can't speak for MM, but for me your just avoiding the issue. Here's a suggestion. YOU define what violence is in the context of this thread then give us an example or two of it.

IOW, stop weasling and start engaging.

He wanted someone to post something. I found something - but wasn't sure if it qualified for his definition. I'm still not sure if it did, but he's being rather abrupt and others here seem awfully touchy. Oh well. I'm glad to see such willingness to discuss things here.

I'm the one weasling and not engaging? Puh.... Lease.

[MattusMaximus]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.

You know, between being purposefully obtuse on the question of "what is violence" and making other boneheaded comments here, you keep coming back to this particular point as well.

It is moot. You guys have had your chance at this - twice - in one of the most conservative states in the Union, South Dakota, and the voters of that state have turned back your efforts to ban all abortions. Twice.

It's called reality - deal with it.

[sugarb]

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part.



I confess I've never understood why killing (a baby / fetus / potential human / whatever you want to call it) is a right. This thread is probably not the place to educate me on that - we'd probably get accused of derailing this thread.



Yeah - I think assisted suicide and medical marijuana. I'm sure there are others.


In the first part, I'm talking about states that are already struggling to have enough law enforcement to deal with current increasing crime rates. What you are suggesting means that, if those states were to keep abortion legal, they'd have to somehow find a way to protect people from the radical protestors that would show up to attack sitting ducks.

Assisted suicide, medical mary jane, and abortion, eh? How about viagra and vasectomies? Wonder why they don't make your list...

[Cleon]

Nobody is dying on the other side? Hmmm.

It might help if you responded to what I actually wrote.

[applecorped]

It might help if you responded to what I actually wrote.

It might help you.

[sugarb]

If true, that is clearly inappropriate and I hope that individual got their just desserts through our legal system. However, it doesn't equate to what I keep asking for... evidence of "pro-choicers" bombing & shooting "pro-life" advocates in an effort to intimidate them. I don't see how I can be any more clear on this particular point, and anyone who continues to ask for "clarification" is obviously acting the fool in an effort to avoid facing facts and answering the damn question.

Agreed, and no, it doesn't rise to the same level at all. People, in groups, protesting or counter protesting or whatever, often get worked up and dumb things happen. Plotting bombings and murders is something else ENTIRELY.

You really don't need to clarify. The difference is quite clear :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

You know, between being purposefully obtuse on the question of "what is violence" and making other boneheaded comments here, you keep coming back to this particular point as well.

It is moot. You guys have had your chance at this - twice - in one of the most conservative states in the Union, South Dakota, and the voters of that state have turned back your efforts to ban all abortions. Twice.

It's called reality - deal with it.

What the hell do you mean - you guys? And what the hell do you mean your efforts.

You're making some ass-making asumptions.

[MattusMaximus]

I've never equated the extremes with killing people. In fact - I'd say most people in the extremes on either side will never kill someone. But they are dragging us into their bitch-slapping sessions.

Correction: no one on one side has killed anyone at all over disagreements on this issue, while the other side has a documented history of extremist violence directed in ways which add up to domestic terrorism.

You folks on the "pro-life" side need to clean up your glass house before you even think about casting any stones, pal.

[MattusMaximus]

What the hell do you mean - you guys? And what the hell do you mean your efforts.

You're making some ass-making asumptions.

More purposeful obtuseness... :rolleyes:

ETA: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Dakota_Abortion_Ban_Initiative_(2008)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Assisted suicide, medical mary jane, and abortion, eh? How about viagra and vasectomies? Wonder why they don't make your list...

You think the Federal Government should make Viagra illegal? What if a state wants it to be legal?

[MattusMaximus]

I never said they were very good at it but a pathetic attempt could be made to insinuate that they were attempting to be verrrrrrryyyyyyy late term abortionists.:cool:

Attempt at humor...

Fail :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

You think the Federal Government should make Viagra illegal? What if a state wants it to be legal?

Quit derailing, or I'll sick the Mods on you. If you want to get into a discussion about federalism, start another thread in the Politics section.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Correction: no one on one side has killed anyone at all over disagreements on this issue, while the other side has a documented history of extremist violence directed in ways which add up to domestic terrorism.


It's irrelevant to the point I'm making which is lost on you since you're blinded by the assumptions your making about me.


You folks on the "pro-life" side need to clean up your glass house before you even think about casting any stones, pal.

See. You're already assigning me a side and damning me along with the psycho who killed the doctor. And I've never stated my position here except that maybe it might be a good idea to let states decide for themselves. Then again - maybe not. So far - I've only had a good exchange with a few here and gone around and around with others.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Quit derailing, or I'll sick the Mods on you. If you want to get into a discussion about federalism, start another thread in the Politics section.

Go ahead. Sick them on me. My original post having to do with federalism wasn't a derail - it was in response to what I've seen in this thread and how I felt about it and this whole topic in general.

What the hell's your problem?

[MattusMaximus]

See. You're already assigning me a side and damning me along with the psycho who killed the doctor. And I've never stated my position here except that maybe it might be a good idea to let states decide for themselves. Then again - maybe not. So far - I've only had a good exchange with a few here and gone around and around with others.

Nice way to play the martyr card :rolleyes:

Okay, I'll bite if it will satisfy your ego - do you consider yourself "pro-life"? Please describe your views in detail so that we no longer insinuate anything at all about you that could possibly hurt your all-too-fragile feelings :(

As for going round and round with people on this thread, blame yourself and your delaying, derailing tactics.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Nice way to play the martyr card :rolleyes:

Okay, I'll bite if it will satisfy your ego - do you consider yourself "pro-life"? Please describe your views in detail so that we no longer insinuate anything at all about you that could possibly hurt your all-too-fragile feelings :(

As for going round and round with people on this thread, blame yourself and your delaying, derailing tactics.

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Choice.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Choice.

Nice way to describe your views in detail.

More purposeful obtuseness... :rolleyes:

[Morrigan]

Thanks for being so kind and willing to discuss. I love the tolerance and openness here.



And thanks for clarifying. I won't post what I found then. That's all. Was it so hard to clarify? wow.

What the hell's with the hostility here? You'd think I was for making abortion illegal or something.:boggled:

Wow - just wow.

Please, everyone can see you were being deliberately obtuse and going off on tangents instead of responding to actual points. That tends to make people impatient and annoyed. In truth, you deserve more hostility than you are receiving IMO, people are exceedingly courteous here.

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Choice.

Thanks for another vapid non-answer.

[garcia<3]

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Choice.

So if you had a uterus you would never get an abortion if the situation came up but you believe women should have the right to choose. OK.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Nice way to describe your views in detail.

More purposeful obtuseness... :rolleyes:

I think a fetus is a human. I think that making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions and harms women.

Is that detailed enough? Did I pass your litmus test?

[A Christian Sceptic]

So if you had a uterus you would never get an abortion if the situation came up but you believe women should have the right to choose. OK.

Some women choose to have an abortion whether it's legal or illegal. I also think the pro-life movement is wasting time and energy on trying to make a Federal Ban on Abortion - it won't stop abortions. If they care about the women and the babies they should identify why women even have abortions and maybe focus on those environmental variables instead. Then women can choose not to have an abortion.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Thanks for another vapid non-answer.

garcia>3 understood.

[Robster, FCD]

Protecting rights isn't a voting issue in my opinion. Cleon nailed it. Jim Crow.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So MattusMaximus - now that I've told you in detail my views. Which side do you want to assign me to? Hmm?

[MattusMaximus]

Some women choose to have an abortion whether it's legal or illegal. I also think the pro-life movement is wasting time and energy on trying to make a Federal Ban on Abortion - it won't stop abortions. If they care about the women and the babies they should identify why women even have abortions and maybe focus on those environmental variables instead. Then women can choose not to have an abortion.

They can already do that.

Good grief :rolleyes:

Folks, at this point I think it would be wise for us all to collectively ignore anything that ACS has to say from now on. ACS clearly seems to be unwilling in sticking to the point of the thread, and I think this is probably a deliberate attempt to derail.

Let's just stop feeding the troll.

[BenBurch]

The sick thing is the so-called "pro-life" murderers do not appear to want there to be NO abortions, because there have ALWAYS been abortions, they appear to want there to be no safe, legal abortions. This is because the life of the mother appears to means nothing whatsoever to them, and they actually appear happy that women get horribly maimed and killed in botched back-alley abortions because, well, those are the wages of sin for "loose" women.

[A Christian Sceptic]

They can already do that.

Good grief :rolleyes:

Folks, at this point I think it would be wise for us all to collectively ignore anything that ACS has to say from now on. ACS clearly seems to be unwilling in sticking to the point of the thread, and I think this is probably a deliberate attempt to derail.

Let's just stop feeding the troll.

What was my point in that post you "good griefed"? Did you not read it? You can't really be this dense.

[MattusMaximus]

The sick thing is the so-called "pro-life" murderers do not appear to want there to be NO abortions, because there have ALWAYS been abortions, they appear to want there to be no safe, legal abortions. This is because the life of the mother appears to means nothing whatsoever to them, and they actually appear happy that women get horribly maimed and killed in botched back-alley abortions because, well, those are the wages of sin for "loose" women.

Sorry, but I think this is a bit of hyperbole. I say that because I honestly don't think the extremists even think in these kind of terms... most of them probably don't get much past "I'm doing God's will in saving these babies."

ETA: In thinking that way, it's awfully easy to convince oneself that murder (in the name of God) is justified.

[BenBurch]

for example; http://www.fwhc.org/stories/caroline.htm

This is what they want MORE of.

[BenBurch]

Sorry, but I think this is a bit of hyperbole. I say that because I honestly don't think the extremists even think in these kind of terms... most of them probably don't get much past "I'm doing God's will in saving these babies."

I confronted several from "Concerned Women For America" at a protest and they said "Why should we care what happens to those sluts?!"

Good Christian Women, they.

[MattusMaximus]

I confronted several from "Concerned Women For America" at a protest and they said "Why should we care what happens to those sluts?!"

Good Christian Women, they.

Ah, I understand the point you're making, but we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the crowd that waves signs and talks trash. I'm talking about the murderous killers. Two different things, but I can see how an extremist & imbalanced version of the former can lead to the latter...

[BenBurch]

Ah, I understand the point you're making, but we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the crowd that waves signs and talks trash. I'm talking about the murderous killers. Two different things, but I can see how an extremist & imbalanced version of the former can lead to the latter...

If you don't think those creatures smiled when they heard this, you have a much less jaundiced view of humanity than I can muster.

[MattusMaximus]

If you don't think those creatures smiled when they heard this, you have a much less jaundiced view of humanity than I can muster.

I think some of the more demented ones probably did, but I also think some of them also were saddened.

I'm not willing to paint with such a wide brush as you.

[oldhat]

I confronted several from "Concerned Women For America" at a protest and they said "Why should we care what happens to those sluts?!"

This seems to be the overriding motive behind most of these anti-abortion zealots. Of course most of them being pro-war and pro-death penalty without thinking twice about it, I'd imagine, all of this BS about "compassion for life" notwithstanding.

Ever notice it's the men who are most crazed about the issue? Randall Terry, the guy who blew up the Olympics in Atlanta and his brother who sawed off his hand with a chainsaw in protest all the way down to the talking heads in the media, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk. Punish the dirty, dirty whores!

[garcia<3]

for example; http://www.fwhc.org/stories/caroline.htm

This is what they want MORE of.

I tried reading it, I couldn't finish. I feel a little sick now :covereyes

[BenBurch]

I tried reading it, I couldn't finish. I feel a little sick now :covereyes

That is the usual reaction.

I posted one of the less bad stories I am aware of.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, I'd imagine the rest of the congregation of the church he was shot in would condemn it pretty heavily.
Yep--even those who protest at abortion clinics holding signs that say, "Abortion is murder."

They'll do their best to distance themselves from this murder.

[MattusMaximus]

Ever notice it's the men who are most crazed about the issue? Randall Terry, the guy who blew up the Olympics in Atlanta and his brother who sawed off his hand with a chainsaw in protest all the way down to the talking heads in the media, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk. Punish the dirty, dirty whores!

Good point. I was just thinking about this very thing. Hmmm...

[Lucky]

Well, I'd imagine the rest of the congregation of the church he was shot in would condemn it pretty heavily.Yep--even those who protest at abortion clinics holding signs that say, "Abortion is murder."

They'll do their best to distance themselves from this murder.
If this post has any point at all, you seem to be saying that anyone who believes that "Abortion is murder" (and btw I don't believe any such thing) is therefore partially responsible for the murder of abortionists.

Rather a stretch, don't you think? For example, as a (near) pacifist I might believe that the decision to invade Iraq constituted murder, but I am most emphatically not advocating the murder of Bush/Blair.

[MattusMaximus]

That is the usual reaction.

I posted one of the less bad stories I am aware of.

Pretty rough stuff, but I did get past the back-alley abortion bit - eventually. Once I got to the section about the clinical abortion procedure, it was much easier going.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Erm...I see it as one person taking it upon himself to level a firearm at another and pull the trigger.
And how many other people screaming, "Abortion is murder!"?

I certainly don't blame "Christianity", but I do blame everyone who asserts that abortion is murder. If abortion really were murder, then this guy's actions would be reasonable or even commendable.

I think most people who make that claim don't even believe it themselves.

I'm not saying they should commit murder, but their actions are not at all consistent with that assertion. They generally allow exceptions for cases of rape and incest. (If abortion were murder because a fetus is a human being, the cause of pregnancy would be completely irrelevant.) They generally favor laws that punish abortion clinic workers (doctors, nurses and so on), and not laws that would imprison the woman having an abortion. If abortion were murder, a woman asking for an abortion (and either paying or causing to be paid the people providing that service) would be as guilty as a person who hires a hit man for a contract murder.

At any rate, they should understand how inflammatory it is to claim, "Abortion is murder". Even though they themselves don't believe it, they should expect that some people will take them seriously.

ETA: I'm certainly not saying the murderer isn't responsible for his actions. I just think these hypocrites who egged him on should think about what they're saying.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If this post has any point at all, you seem to be saying that anyone who believes that "Abortion is murder" (and btw I don't believe any such thing) is therefore partially responsible for the murder of abortionists.
No--not those who believe it, but those who make the assertion that "Abortion is murder."

I do think they're partly blameworthy, but not guilty of murder.

More importantly I think their condemnation of this murder and trying to distance themselves from it is shamefully hypocritical and logically inconsistent with their claim. (As are their other positions on abortion, as I said in my previous post.)

[King of the Americas]

Some have shown no sorrow or regret over this murder, in broad daylight at a Church...

This is NOT the first such attack, from this 'movement' on doctors willing to perform abortions, in fact one spokesperson outwardly proclaimed to media outlets, "...this guy got what he deserved..." He even went as far as calling him "demonic".

Call them 'satan', and use violence to achieve political goals...

That reminds of something...starts with a "t"...ends in "ism"...what's the word?

Using violence to achieve political goals is still terrorism, isn't it?

[Cleon]

If this post has any point at all, you seem to be saying that anyone who believes that "Abortion is murder" (and btw I don't believe any such thing) is therefore partially responsible for the murder of abortionists.

No, but the "Abortion is Murder" rhetoric does contribute to it.

Suppose you lived during WWII. Someone shoots the commandant of your friendly neighborhood death camp. Wouldn't you cheer a little? Wouldn't you give some support to the people assassinating these mass-murdering bastards? Hell, if you had the testicular fortitude, maybe you'd do some shooting yourself, wouldn't you?

I would.

The thing is, this is not a Godwin. The anti-abortion movement does use this kind of rhetoric. They do compare abortion to the Holocaust; hell, when I was in college, a bunch of loons showed up with giant banners displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses and Holocaust victims. Why did they do this? Because at the time, Elie Wiesel was speaking, and they wanted him to see it! Elie *********** Wiesel! (He, obviously, denounced them.)

And the thing is, this **** is mainstream. It's not the fringe elements that are spreading these messages, it's people like Randall Terry. It's people like Rush Limbaugh.


So no, I don't think every person who is anti-abortion is responsible for this. But I do place some of the responsibility on the anti-abortion movement leaders who set the message and spread the rhetoric. If you convince enough people that a doctor is a mass-murderer, eventually someone is going to act on that conviction.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Saying that abortion is murder is murder.

Goddamn murderers.

Someone should do something about them.

[The Painter]

"Abortion is murder" It seems to me it's the murder part that they don't like. So those in the church who distance themselves from the murder of this doctor and in fact condemn it, are not hypocrites at all. They are consistent in their belief that murder is wrong.

[oldhat]

It seems to me it's the murder part that they don't like. So those in the church who distance themselves from the murder of this doctor and in fact condemn it, are not hypocrites at all. They are consistent in their belief that murder is wrong.

What do you do to "mass murderers"? Is it enough to wave placards in their faces and hand out leaflets? No, you bring them to justice and execute them. When grand juries can't find anything to bring the mass baby murderer up on, well...you resort to different means. This isn't an isolated incident, this has spanned two decades and nine attacks.

You're soft pedaling the rhetoric they're using.

Josh Marshall has a good take on this: (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/rubber_hits_the_road.php)

There's been a lot of push on the pro-choice side to identify the murder of George Tiller as an act of domestic terrorism rather than a simple murder or 'abortion clinic shooting.' It's a push I agree with. But there's a detail in Zack Roth's follow up piece on the shooting that puts the issue in a much more concrete light. Roeder, the suspect in Tiller's murder, had apparently twice tried to vandalize another clinic in the last two weeks -- and in a way that suggested it might be setting the stage for a more serious break in. An employee at the clinic managed to get Roeder's license plate number and reported it to federal authorities, only to be told that nothing could be done before a grand jury had been impaneled.

It seems difficult to imagine that similar suspicious behavior, let alone actual vandalism, would have generated such a passive response if the clinic had been a synagogue or a federal building and the suspect had an Arab name.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It seems to me it's the murder part that they don't like. So those in the church who distance themselves from the murder of this doctor and in fact condemn it, are not hypocrites at all. They are consistent in their belief that murder is wrong.

No they're not--at least not most of these "moderates".

If they believed it was murder, they would support laws that sought to punish the woman who conspired or contracted for the murder.


If they beleived it was murder, it would make no sense at all for them to allow exceptions for rape and incest (which most moderate pro-lifers do support).

ETA: If they believed it was murder, it also wouldn't make sense to allow exceptions for the mother's health or life. I can't imagine they could construe such situations as killing in self-defense! (To make that defense, you have to believe that an unlawful force is threatening someone's life. If the fetus is a person, it has done nothing unlawful.) Also, some forms of contraception that are widely used--yes even by pro-lifers!--would also be considered murder. For that matter, even if they refrain from using contraceptives themselves, their actions wrt to people around them using such contraceptives are not consistent with belief that those friends and family members are committing murder.

They spout this inflammatory rhetoric that they themselves don't believe in, then pretend to be shocked when someone actually believes it and acts accordingly.

Yes, I understand there is an exceptionally small minority who consistently hold the position that, "Abortion is murder" (they would give the woman who has an abortion a life sentence for conspiring to "murder" the fetus and they make no exceptions for rape or incest or even for the life or health of the mother) but who also eschew violence.

I would love to meet those three or four people some day.

(By the way, although I understand, "Abortion is murder" to mean "Abortion should be considered murder", I could take them at face value and prove they don't literally believe, "Abortion is murder." If you knew of a murder being committed and you are opposed to violence, you'd probably dial 911 and report the matter to the authorities. If someone really literally believed "Abortion is murder" they would clearly be delusional.)

[The Painter]

If they believed it was murder, they would support laws that sought to punish the woman who conspired or contracted for the murder.

Try this one on for size;

Woman charged with murder for stillbirth (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/07/woman-charged-w.html)

I also assume, that you assume an unborn child is not alive so it can't be murder. Your opinion is not law.

A fetus must be at least 16 weeks old to classify as a murder victim, officials said.

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/palmview-17831-degree-murder.html


The California Supreme Court upheld the law in 1994, saying a fetus older than the seven- to eight-week embryonic term did not need to be viable outside the mother's womb to be a murder victim.

http://cbs13.com/local/Stabbing.New.Year.2.474994.html

16 weeks. 7 to 8 weeks. Didn't this doctor preform late term abortions? Isn't that beyond these thresholds? By these laws, wouldn't that be murder? No, because the would be Mom said it's OK and yet they charge another "Mom" with murder for stillborn. Go figure.


It's nice that the issue is so black and white to you. Clearly it is not for the majority of people. How can anyone be charged with murder if it's not alive? In China female fetus are regularly aborted because they want sons. Is that OK? The issue goes much deeper than murder or not murder.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also assume, that you assume an unborn child is not alive so it can't be murder.
You assume wrong. I believe that because the fetus is not a person, it's not murder. If you want more particulars, my approach is close to that of Alonzo Fyfe's desire utilitarianism (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?s=abortion&x=0&y=0). Since a fetus before a certain point lacks the neurological structures and functions that result in having desires that may be fulfilled or thwarted, it is not murder.

Your opinion is not law.
So are you suffering from the delusion that abortion IS murder according to the law?


It's nice that the issue is so black and white to you.
Rubbish. I'm strongly criticizing people who go around saying "Abortion is murder" and you accuse me of seeing things as black and white?!!

I'm pro-choice. I don't want to take this moral choice away from women and doctors.

[Whiplash]

That's because he's honest and decent. Which many on the Right just are not.


Wow Ben, that was incredibly nice of you, especially considering that I was pretty brutal towards you during the election stuff. I feel bad about that now. I let my emotions get the better of me.

Thank you very much, and to everyone else who is giving me a chance. I'm trying very hard to learn from you guys and open my mind.

Thanks Ben, that was very kind of you.

[I Ratant]

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Choice.
.
This is so ridiculous it defies rational thought!
But it's certainly in step with the irrationalities of the christian faith.
"Pro-choice".. the woman can choose.
"Pro-life"... the woman can't choose!

[I Ratant]

I confronted several from "Concerned Women For America" at a protest and they said "Why should we care what happens to those sluts?!"

Good Christian Women, they.
.
Where are all the "pro-lifers" lining up to adopt the carried-to-term unwanted child?

[I Ratant]

Pretty rough stuff, but I did get past the back-alley abortion bit - eventually. Once I got to the section about the clinical abortion procedure, it was much easier going.
.
Whoopi Goldberg did a comic bit about her being a surfer chick.
Lots of silly stuff... lots of laughter from the audience.
When Whoopi described her (surfer chick persona) attempts to self-induce an abortion, the audience went totally silent!

[garcia<3]

.
Where are all the "pro-lifers" lining up to adopt the carried-to-term unwanted child?

Good question

[Whiplash]

I've always been under the impression that there are already plenty of people trying to adopt children. I've heard stories of people waiting for as long as a year to adopt a child.

I googled a bit and found some forum discussions where people say times ranging from 6 to 18 months, and longer, but also depending on what parameters the adopting parents seek.

For example:

http://forums.adoption.com/christian-adoptive-parents/100576-how-long-wait-adopt-child.html

Some actual Christians discussing how long to wait for an adoption!

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are many unwanted babies though. I'm open to seeing any real data.

[dudalb]

In the meantime one of the US soldiers shot outside of Washington by a Islamic nutjob. died. No media coverage, no statement from Obama.
Nice double standard.

[Philip]

.
This is so ridiculous it defies rational thought!
But it's certainly in step with the irrationalities of the christian faith.
"Pro-choice".. the woman can choose.
"Pro-life"... the woman can't choose!
So you're "pro-death"?

I think many moderates would say they think abortion as a form of birth control for the careless should be discouraged, but ultimately it's up to the woman and her doctor to choose; hence, pro-life pro-choice.

That's why I think the better terminology is pro-choice vs. anti-choice or pro abortion rights vs. anti abortion rights rather than pro-choice vs. pro-life.

[Philip]

In the meantime one of the US soldiers shot outside of Washington by a Islamic nutjob. died. No media coverage, no statement from Obama.
Nice double standard.
Are protesters that say "US soldiers are murderers" partly responsible?

[Whiplash]

Are protesters that say "US soldiers are murderers" partly responsible?


Or how about those that say "America had it comin'!" or even "America's pigeons have come home to roost". :D

Seems to me these things incite and even excuse violence against America (which includes American soldiers obviously).

People who are already inclined to do bad things to us can only be emboldend by hearing that some of our very own citizens think they have every good reason to hurt us.

[I Ratant]

So you're "pro-death"?

I think many moderates would say they think abortion as a form of birth control for the careless should be discouraged, but ultimately it's up to the woman and her doctor to choose; hence, pro-life pro-choice.

That's why I think the better terminology is pro-choice vs. anti-choice or pro abortion rights vs. anti abortion rights rather than pro-choice vs. pro-life.
.
Pro-life as we know it admits no grey area.
The woman MUST bear the child.
Any other viewpoint is pro-choice, and there are many many reasons to consider the choice and counsel the woman.
But it is the only rational situation.