Famous abortionist killed on his way into church

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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.

You must have missed the part where I gave the mom a full month to decide what she wants after finding out she's pregnant. Assuming she knows at 3 months, which I think is a generous amount of time.

After 4 months, abortion is outlawed unless the mother's life is in danger. Or the life of the fetus....where you would obviously have to abort it.

Just my opinion.

You would also do well not to generalize all people who you deem to be 'pro life' into the same category. The beauty of all this is having the freedom to disagree and meet in the middle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

Again, here you assume that I'm pro-life to the point where I don't see the importance in not having 12 year old mothers raising kids.

Which is why I give them the 4 month period to abort the baby. After that, its too late.

I think that mores than reasonable enough.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually, I think HOZ makes a good point here--and a point worth emphasizing. Most pro-lifers are not running around shooting abortion providers. This guy is the exception, not the rule. We may not like people demonstrating near women's shelters and abortion clinics, but we can all agree that those sorts of tactics are a kind of speech. In that sense, the abortion issue with all of its complexities is more or less beside the point; we may never agree on abortion as a matter of policy, but I hope everyone (with the probable exception of Calgaryborn) will agree that shooting people is both criminal and morally reprehensible.

I'd put it this way: this man's crime was not being pro-life. His crime was murder. If he'd stuck to arguing on the internet, he'd be a free man today.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

Your arguement fails because you don't believe in killing the children of drug addicts or the children of teenage mothers after their born. The thought would horrify you. You do however see the killing of unborn children of such parents as practical. Maybe it is practical but, that doesn't make it right. If an unborn child is human you make space for them.

Regarding the rape victim I'm reminded of a story I recently read about a women who was raped as a 14 year old and forced to give up her child(through adoption) by her parents. She never forgot about her first born even after she married and had some more of her own. She eventually found him after something like 40 years. She never once blamed her son for the sins of his father. If another mother would see her child differently because of how he/she was conceived that wouldn't make the baby guilty or worthy of death.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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.

I'm sure many would step up but why would only prolifers have to pay. Unwanted children are everyones responsibility. I know a couple of people who were raised in orphanages in post war Europe. Their happy to be alive. I'm also sure the conditions they were raised in were a lot worse than what we could offer today.

You also have to realize that the amount of unwanted pregnancies would be greatly reduces. Without the option of a quicky abortion sexual behaviour would change. More abstainance and more religious use of protection. I think many younger women underestimate the emotional and physical cost of having an abortion. Without that option they might gamble less with their bodies.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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.

How much is an unwanted child worth to you? Is it worth less than a wanted child? You keep mentioning "cost" as if it is a factor in determining whether an unborn child is human. It shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

I don't see where examining Biblical doctrine adds to this discussion. The Bible isn't an authority for you and judging by your comments here you don't have a working knowledge of scriptures. If you really want to understand your parents position try downloading a Strongs concordance and a Hebrew lexicon in english that uses the Strongs numbering system. You will find both for free on line. Then do a word study on the word "kill" as used in the ten commandments and other Hebrew words translated "kill" in the Old Testament. Don't rely on the lexicon's definitions alone but, look up the passages and see context. Your parents aren't as conflicted as you might think.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

Again this is a bit of a rabbit trail. My responsibility to the rest of the world doesn't effect the value of an unborn life. My primary responsibility is to myself and immediate family; followed by my extended family, neighbors, community, country and then world.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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.

So would your logic make you a hypocrite for not paying for all abortions out of your pocket instead of relying on tax money which I'm forced to contribute to? It should.

Most of your arguments including the four questions at the beginning have to do with cost. I agree one should count the cost but, not before one has extablished the value of the unborn child. I contend that unborn child is equal to a born child in value and that a child is equal to an adult in worth. A human at three weeks of development or three months development or three years development isn't fully formed but are still humans and should be valued equally with a mature human being.

Don't let the cost influence the value you should place on a baby who is still waiting to be born. It will taint your thinking. Remember there are societies on earth today who devalue the handicaped and/or women based on their cost to society and immediate families. Extablish the unborn child's worth before you count the cost.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, here you assume that I'm pro-life to the point where I don't see the importance in not having 12 year old mothers raising kids.

Which is why I give them the 4 month period to abort the baby. After that, its too late.

I think that mores than reasonable enough.

Fair enough. Assuming the mother knows I think it is reasonable to expect a prompt decision in the vast majority of cases. I'm sure there are some exceptions but I can't formulate any atm.

And I apologize for over-generalizing, its all too easy to do unfortunately.

I guess I am just bewildered by the hardcore pro-lifers in this thread who seem to think they are thinking about the children when its clear they aren't thinking of about the type of lives these "saved" children will have if they are brought into the world.

Sounds like you're fully aware though, my rant was somewhat misplaced then.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

For one thing, you're actually on the pro-choice side; you already think that abortion is acceptable, you're just quibbling on the details. If you think that people like you are representative of the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, I'm sorry but that is just wrong. Being personally against abortion but unwilling to force that opinion on other people IS being pro-choice - you feel that you don't have the right to decide for others.

For another, you are assuming that there is some definable moment when a fetus becomes a human being, but this is not something that happens in the sense of a phase change where one thing turns into another, and thus it is not that we don't KNOW - it's that it is unknowable and pretty well a meaningless question because "human" is not an inherent and objective quality but rather bound up in the point of view of a particular observer.

For the purposes of the state (the ultimate disinterested observer), a human is what the law defines as human. If I make the law that after 6 months, you are committing murder by abortion except in carefully defined situations, that is just as valid as your 4 month limit, or someone else's 7 or 5 or 0 month limit. We are not arguing about some "true" definition of human, we are arguing the justifications behind law, and in that sense it is indeed relevant to decry the attempt to force religious morality upon people who don't share that religion.

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?

Why does there have to be a reason? Does there have to be a reason at 3.5 months? What is the magic of the number 4? As I said previously, the only reason six months is a common term is that it is possible a fetus can survive after delivery then, and thus the line between fetus and baby is nothing more than location, which hardly seems a sufficient reason to deny the right to life.

For the record, I personally don't approve of abortion because I feel that it is a symptom of a society that does not value children appropriately - an ideal society would neither stigmatize unmarried mothers nor allow children to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. However, since we don't live (and aren't ever likely to live) in such a society, I understand that I have no right to impose my opinion on anyone who feels that abortion is necessary for her because I am not the one who has to deal with the consequences of that decision.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your arguement fails because you don't believe in killing the children of drug addicts or the children of teenage mothers after their born. The thought would horrify you. You do however see the killing of unborn children of such parents as practical. Maybe it is practical but, that doesn't make it right. If an unborn child is human you make space for them.

Most of your arguments including the four questions at the beginning have to do with cost. I agree one should count the cost but, not before one has extablished the value of the unborn child. I contend that unborn child is equal to a born child in value and that a child is equal to an adult in worth. A human at three weeks of development or three months development or three years development isn't fully formed but are still humans and should be valued equally with a mature human being.

I guess we're all drawing the line somewhere. You're drawing it at conception, I'm not. Do you consider a fertilized egg stored in a clinic to be a human life? How much of a difference is there between that and a fertilized egg in the womb? You appear to want to protect all potential life, does this include potential sperm and egg combinations that haven't been combined yet in the lab?

Is using birth control murdering potential human life?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm sure many would step up but why would only prolifers have to pay. Unwanted children are everyones responsibility. I know a couple of people who were raised in orphanages in post war Europe. Their happy to be alive. I'm also sure the conditions they were raised in were a lot worse than what we could offer today.

The question had to do with who is going to raise all these unwanted kids. Sounds like you are in favour of investing in a lot of orphanges.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You also have to realize that the amount of unwanted pregnancies would be greatly reduces. Without the option of a quicky abortion sexual behaviour would change. More abstainance and more religious use of protection. I think many younger women underestimate the emotional and physical cost of having an abortion. Without that option they might gamble less with their bodies.

I think that is highly suspect. You think they underestimate the emotional and physical cost of having an abortion, that I think may be true. But I think you underestimate how scared most girls are of getting pregnant before they are ready. And even if they don't underestimate the costs of abortion and do not want in any way to get pregnant, they still may experiment with alcohol and make a poor decision about birth control while totally drunk as one example. And as we know birth control is not 100% effective, someone I know got pregnant recently even though they were using birth control.

I'd be interested in seeing some studies that suggest in countries that outlaw abortion the rates of birth control are much higher. I think you'd be hard pressed to back that one up.

I believe we would have to deal with thousands more unwanted kids every year. You believe those kids would magically go away as all teenagers somehow become super responsible and never make mistakes or have sex while inebriated or have birth control failures.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't see where examining Biblical doctrine adds to this discussion. The Bible isn't an authority for you and judging by your comments here you don't have a working knowledge of scriptures. If you really want to understand your parents position try downloading a Strongs concordance and a Hebrew lexicon in english that uses the Strongs numbering system. You will find both for free on line. Then do a word study on the word "kill" as used in the ten commandments and other Hebrew words translated "kill" in the Old Testament. Don't rely on the lexicon's definitions alone but, look up the passages and see context. Your parents aren't as conflicted as you might think.

You appear to be suggesting that killing is justified in the bible? Perhaps you are making a distinction between killing and murder? Wheres the line?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Don't let the cost influence the value you should place on a baby who is still waiting to be born. It will taint your thinking. Remember there are societies on earth today who devalue the handicaped and/or women based on their cost to society and immediate families. Extablish the unborn child's worth before you count the cost.

What I'm really getting at is who is going to raise these unwanted kids? If you're suggesting orphanages then society will have to pay a lot, for a long time. I don't believe there are enough parents looking to adopt to cover the slack. I think it is ideal to have kids grow up with parents, not to grow up in institutions.

Tough issue. I guess the pro-choice stance can be a little hypocritical at times. I guess for me it boils down to me not believing that all potential and existing human life is sacred. But there are some holes in the pro-life argument as well around what should be considered potential human life. Tough issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Before I ever posted on this thread Pro-lifers were called "the scum of the earth" "as low as human beings can get" " .

No, don't misquote me Calgaryborn. I said that vocal pro-lifers, those who go and protest at abortion clinics, belong to groups like operation rescue etc. ....Scum of the earth.

They harass 14 year old girls going into clinics when they have no idea why the girl is there. They hand out pictures of aborted fetuses to kids that can't read.

Scum of the earth.

People who have a pro-life viewpoint but are disgusted by the above? NOT SCUM OF THE EARTH.

I resent your twisting of my words.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

Not enough pro-choicers are saying that there are easily obtainable, cheap forms of contraception that could prevent nearly every one of your hypotheticals. All I hear is what about the unwanted babies of homeless, drug addicted teenagers? (As if that demographic represents a significant portion of abortions.) Yet not once has anyone mentioned personal responsibility in this thread.

Abortion should be legal because some babies might be unwanted. Well, when it's used as birth control, it's one of the most disgusting events on the planet no matter what your beliefs about when life begins are and it teaches some that they don't have to be responsible for their actions.

Those are legitimate issues that should be discussed as well.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Fair enough. Assuming the mother knows I think it is reasonable to expect a prompt decision in the vast majority of cases. I'm sure there are some exceptions but I can't formulate any atm.

And I apologize for over-generalizing, its all too easy to do unfortunately.

I guess I am just bewildered by the hardcore pro-lifers in this thread who seem to think they are thinking about the children when its clear they aren't thinking of about the type of lives these "saved" children will have if they are brought into the world.

Sounds like you're fully aware though, my rant was somewhat misplaced then.

Plural? Really?

[Displaced Flames fan]

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/...eZG7NRNnA.cspx

Roeder says there are many similar events planned around the country already.

I seriously doubt he has any knowledge of any organized and systematic plan to kill abortion clinicians. But you can bet your sweet ass the FBI is already planning an interrogation to make sure.

[Azure]

Yeah, CB is really the only one who seems to strictly against it.

Everyone else, including those like me who are pro-life in a personal sense, but pro-choice when it applies to other people.....are only against abortion after a certain timeframe. Is it 6 months? 5 months? 4 months? I honestly don't know, which is why I'm glad I'm not in a position to decide that for anyone else.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

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.

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.

Let's not stop at killing the abortionists. Let's kill the masterbaters too! Think of the unborn children they 'kill' each time they pleasure themselves!

[HammerHead]

CalgaryBorn you are now my hero
I myself have no sypathy for tiller

[Displaced Flames fan]

Takes less than 40 minutes to reach a guilty verdict against this clown.

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/...BWLU8fN0g.cspx

His entire defense was that this was justifiable homicide and he admitted on the stand killing Dr. Tiller. Moron. He had no chance.

[Resolute 14]

40 minutes to convict him, eh? I'm guessing the jury had lunch before voting, cause that was 39 minutes too long otherwise.