Famous abortionist killed on his way into church

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Gozer

2) is not (always) true.

True, but so far as can be proven this Doctor had not violated the law.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by T@T

1) Shooting someone to death outside of a war zone is murder and illegal.
2) Aborting an unborn baby is not illegal

Mind closed!

I fixed your post for clarity.

You would be a Hitler or a Stalin's wet dream. As long as it is legal your ok with it. Right?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I fixed your post for clarity.

You would be a Hitler or a Stalin's wet dream. As long as it is legal your ok with it. Right?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I fixed your post for clarity.

You would be a Hitler or a Stalin's wet dream. As long as it is legal your ok with it. Right?

The point, although may be unintended, is completely fair. The law does not mean something is just or moral.

[Resolute 14]

Who would have guessed that religious crazy people would be invoking Godwin's Law in the belief that it actually helps their argument?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Who would have guessed that religious crazy people would be invoking Godwin's Law in the belief that it actually helps their argument?

What do you do if you do not believe the law is just?

[Resolute 14]

Dunno. But ineffectively invoking Hitler on an internet message board is hardly an effective way of supporting your argument. It really only makes you look like a fool.

Frankly, Calgaryborn's arguments are nothing better than the crap you hear from Fred Phelps inbred Westboro Baptist Church. As such, his opinion is equally worthless in this case. Hatemongers preaching hate because not everybody shares their view. The utterly hilarious part of people like this is that they simply do not realize how hypocritical they are. Narrow world view indeed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Dunno. But ineffectively invoking Hitler on an internet message board is hardly an effective way of supporting your argument. It really only makes you look like a fool.

Frankly, Calgaryborn's arguments are nothing better than the crap you hear from Fred Phelps inbred Westboro Baptist Church. As such, his opinion is equally worthless in this case. Hatemongers preaching hate because not everybody shares their view. The utterly hilarious part of people like this is that they simply do not realize how hypocritical they are. Narrow world view indeed.

I'm not sharing his perspective at all. I am just saying that from a certain, more enlightened perspective, the point is an interesting one to contemplate.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I fixed your post for clarity.

You would be a Hitler or a Stalin's wet dream. As long as it is legal your ok with it. Right?

You didn't fix anything!

Only a bible thumping nutcase would miss the point, have you missed it?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not sharing his perspective at all. I am just saying that from a certain, more enlightened perspective, the point is an interesting one to contemplate.

I agree, not every law is just or moral (otherwise laws would never change), and what to do to change it is an interesting thing.

Obviously you can challenge them through the courts if you have the resources.

Or society at large can challenge the laws; make them change simply by having different mores and expressing displeasure at the standard.

Or barring that maybe through civil disobedience? I don't know if I'd ever advocate or participate in violence, but I also have never lived in a society where slavery was still in place or something like that. My idea of civil disobedience is to video myself cracking encryption that is illegal to crack because I think the laws are unjust and posting that on youtube.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not sharing his perspective at all. I am just saying that from a certain, more enlightened perspective, the point is an interesting one to contemplate.

Absolutely. But lets face it, no bible thumper can really be considered "enlightened". Enlightenment does not come from religious proselytization. And that, of course, is why this debate is so polarizing. Both sides are so convinced of the truth of their dogma they are simply unable to comprehend the possibility that there is another view point.

The morality of abortion is virtually impossible to debate from any kind of enlightened perspective for this very reason. There are a million different viewpoints on when a person is a person, and I wouldn't trust a single person who came up to me and said their view was the correct one. In the end, we each decide where we stand. The closest this debate will ever come to enlightenment is when everyone has the confidence in their own convictions to say "this is what I believe, but I respect that you may believe different."

There will never be a uniform opinion on where the morality line falls. And with that in mind, there is no possible way that a law could be written to satisfy the morals of everyone.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Frankly, Calgaryborn's arguments are nothing better than the crap you hear from Fred Phelps inbred Westboro Baptist Church. As such, his opinion is equally worthless in this case.

Also makes it equally easy to discount their opinion.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Also makes it equally easy to discount their opinion.

Not really, it's not a matter of discounting an opinion or viewpoint, it's a matter of discounting the manner in which it is presented.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Sowa

That narrow minded view that people in this thread have is "killing people is wrong and doesn't do a good job of getting your pro-life message across."

Before I ever posted on this thread Pro-lifers were called "the scum of the earth" "as low as human beings can get" " bunch of hyprocrites"(at least three times) and it was said that "christianity had put out a Jihad on abortionists". The attractiveness of no consequence sex and the contempt for christianity many feel here make it impossible to get any pro-life message across. I'm sure the shooter used words for years before he ever picked up a gun. He probably was answered with the same contempt as has been expressed through out this thread. Combined that with the fact that he now has a President who has sided against the unborn at every turn during his short career. Words became useless. Lead on the other hand did what words couldn't do: Stop Tiller. Sure someone will replace the doctor but, other doctors who might have considered the abortion business might not like the cost to profit ratio anymore. Dr. Tiller had millions when he died. Now he's got nothing.

There are a lot of stupid platitudes that has been offered in this thread. Yours is one of the worst: "killing people is wrong". Really?? Our military and police forces must deeply offend you then. Dr. Tiller is done killing now only because of lethal force. That is a good thing if the shooter is right and those were babies he was killing. Actually most changes of significance to society(both good and bad) have come through lethal force. The American Constitution became the law of the land because of lethal force backing it up. Both the constitution and the war were illegal until enough British blood was spilt. That bloodshed changed British opinion about their other terrotories. Canada walked away from English control without bloodshed because enough British blood had been spilled in America and France to change their minds about things. Perhaps if this thread has had any useful purpose it is to demonstrat how useless dialogue is in saving the unborn.

Here is my platitude: Killing the unborn is unacceptable when the life of his/her mother isn't at significant risk by carrying her child.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Here is my platitude: Killing the unborn is unacceptable when the life of his/her mother isn't at significant risk by carrying her child.

So you like kids being raised by drug addicts?
So you like kids being raised by teenagers?
So you like adopting kids?
So you like the idea of girls that get raped having to raise a child that reminds them of getting raped, that has the DNA of a rapist? How do you think they are going to view that child, how are they going to raise them?

If your answer is that all those children should be adopted, that isn't a solution at all unless all pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate, foregoing having their own children and instead adopting these kids that are not wanted.

It might be unacceptable to you, but its easy for you to say if you're not paying the societal costs associated with bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Absolute laws and rules are garbage. And what is hilarious is the hypocrisy involved. As has been mentioned there are many Christians who are for capital punishment in a lot of cases. So they are quite willing to bend their "no killing" law when it suits their own feeling of justice. And don't pretend this isn't the case, I've talked to many including my own parents who believe that there are evil people who don't deserve to live. Indeed the Bible itself has circumstances where God asks people to sacrifice or kill their own children. So its okay to kill young innocents but only if God orders you to?

One could also argue that by basking in our own affluence, by having a nice house and a nice car and consuming all the wonderful products of society that we are killing people in the 3rd world who can't afford clean water, clean housing, nutrition, etc. If you aren't involved in supporting those in need perhaps we should call you a 3rd world killer?

Anyways Calgaryborn, I hope you're lining up at the adoption clinic right now. If not you're a huge hypocrite who doesn't recognize the large social issues involved with bringing unwanted babies into the world when we already have problems providing for all those in need. Why don't you go ahead and answer those 4 question I provided at the beginning of my post.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Here is my platitude: Killing the unborn is unacceptable when the life of his/her mother isn't at significant risk by carrying her child.

Why? What makes an unborn child human? If your answer is "a soul", I'm sorry but belief in the soul is not a basis on which you can impose your views upon a secular state. I have no problem with you believing what you will about whether or not abortion is murder, but I do have a problem with the desire to force everyone to conform to that view.

The assumption that some kind of "higher" law permits the murder of abortionists despite the legality of their actions is precisely what moves rational people towards fear and dislike of religious zealots. Always such people cry for "tolerance" of their intolerant beliefs and act like martyrs when their hypocrisy is shown for what it is. It is quite simple: if you want to be tolerated for who you are, you must reciprocate by tolerating others. Killing law-abiding citizens of your polity - or even just celebrating their deaths - is not reciprocal tolerance.

No one is stopping anyone from acting as a Christian - you can go to church, not shop on Sunday, refrain from cursing, never have an abortion, keep sex inside marriage, and pretty well do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The whole "Christian persecution" myth is not only absurd, it's an insult to people like the Buddhists, Muslims, and Falun Gong in China, the Christians in Sudan, and Muslims in Myanmar - religious minorities who are REALLY being persecuted and not just forced to change the channel when a condom commercial comes on television.

[Azure]

Far as I'm concerned, morality is a poor way to define a 'law.' A good way to live your own life, but a poor way to define the laws of our country.

For example....morally, same sex marriage is wrong to some people, but the laws of 'marriage'....are not based on 'moral' reasons.

The definition of the term is to subjective to specifically write a law that bans abortion for example.

The morality of one man is not equal to the morality of another man. And forcing one man's viewpoint upon the rest of society goes against the essence of 'freedom'....of 'liberty'....of the right to 'peruse happiness.' All rights which I'm share we agree should be 'natural' to all of mankind.

[HOZ]

Just to point out to people the assassination was condemned by all but the most fringe pro-life movements. So most pro-lifers are NOT hypocrites.

LA Times
Sadly, Tiller's assailant is not one of a kind, but neither is he typical of the antiabortion movement. Prominent pro-life organizations long have condemned violence against abortion providers while working to restrict the late-term abortions for which Tiller was known. His killing was forthrightly condemned by the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life and Kansas' four Catholic bishops. (A tasteless exception was the reaction of Randall Terry, the former head of Operation Rescue, who said that Tiller "reaped what he sowed.")

Pro-lifers Unite in Condemning Murder


Please return to your sniping.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

No one is stopping anyone from acting as a Christian - you can go to church, not shop on Sunday, refrain from cursing, never have an abortion, keep sex inside marriage, and pretty well do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The whole "Christian persecution" myth is not only absurd, it's an insult to people like the Buddhists, Muslims, and Falun Gong in China, the Christians in Sudan, and Muslims in Myanmar - religious minorities who are REALLY being persecuted and not just forced to change the channel when a condom commercial comes on television.

Really not the point.

At least not to me, and I think a lot of others here will agree. There has to be a more defining definition of 'abortion.' Because we don't KNOW when the fetus becomes a human, I would argue that we should fall on the safe side, or at least try too, and create some sort of standard for late term abortions.

Is there a reason, outside of risk to the mother....to abort a fetus anytime after 4 months assuming the mother knows she is pregnant at 3 months?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is there a reason, outside of risk to the mother....to abort a fetus anytime after 4 months assuming the mother knows she is pregnant at 3 months?

Would you want a child growing up with a 15 year old mother who lives on the street and is not capable of providing for the child? The burden of having to support a child so early in life may basically cripple the mother's life.

Would you want a child coming into the world if the mother had been abusing drugs and alcohol the whole time the child was in the womb, would probably suffer from some side effects from that and would likely be brought up around drugs?

Those are just a couple examples.

What pro-lifers seem to ignore is that you could be bringing a child into a potentially horrible life situation. A situation that does not give them a chance at a normal life. A situation that may lead to their death due to neglect, or the mother dropping the baby in a dumpster because she can't deal with it.

And unless you're stepping up to the plate to adopt, you can't suggest adoption for these thousands of babies that would be born as a realistic option for society. Personally I'm all for giving kids the best opportunity to have a successful and wonderful life. Some young girls are not at all capable of providing that and their families shouldn't be forced to bear the financial burden either.

A further issue is that some people who adopt, adopt babies from the 3rd world who also wouldn't have a chance at a good life. So are pro-lifers really expecting that it is realistic that every unwanted baby be adopted? I'd be interested in seeing some hard numbers posted by any pro-lifer as to the amount of abortions performed per year, the amount of adoptions per year, the demand for adoptions, the amount of adoptions from other countries, etc.

What do propose is done with them to give them a real chance at a good life? Do you really want 12 year olds raising kids? Rape victims raising kids who have the rapist's DNA and remind them constantly of being born out of sexual violence? Do you really want drug addicts raising kids? If someone doesn't feel they can be a good mother, I think they should have that choice. Do you really feel that if a condom breaks or birth control fails (and it does sometimes) that someone should be responsible for the rest of their life for an unwanted baby?

Not enough pro-lifers are talking about what should be done with unwanted babies. All I hear is, "must not kill innocent lives not matter what the extenuating circumstances are." If you don't want them aborted then what do you think should be done with them?