Abortion Doctor gunned down at church in Kansas...

[davious]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tiller_shooting

By now, at least for the Americans on this website, you have probably heard about this, but if you haven't, read the link (story is too long to post)

As everyone who been a regular poster here, and at Sims2community know, I am very Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion. I have stated abortion is murder, and I meant every word. However, I am deeply saddened by this news. There is something profoundly wrong with someone claiming to be Pro-Life, and then committing a terrible violent act like this to get revenge. Especially considering the setting was church, I find it incredibly despicable.

I think most of us would agree that vigilantism is never appropriate, especially taking someone's life like that. Yes, he performed late term abortions. Yes, by the Pro-Life perspective, he could be considered to be a horrible, horrible man. When you believe abortion is murder, you by necessity have to have animosity towards the ones performing it, it goes with the territory. BUT, a true Pro-Life person would never even contemplate assassinating an abortion doctor. Two wrongs do not make a right. Bombing abortion clinics is not being Pro-Life. Physically attacking abortion doctors is not being Pro-Life. Christ would be ashamed of these people committing crimes in His name. I hold no claim of association with those people. Taking the law into your own hands and killing someone, even if you consider them to be a murderer, is not what it means to be Pro-Life.

This topic is especially interesting, because it happened in Kansas. Kansas still has the death penalty, which is another issue that some Pro-Lifers have...Personally, I favor death penalty, because those individuals did something horrible to get sentenced. They murdered, they robbed someone of their right to live, just as abortion robs babies of that right. They had trials, got sentenced, had their appeals, etc. They went through the process. Even if the abortion doctor was a murderer, even if it happened in a death penalty state, that is a matter for the law. Even if abortion were made illegal tomorrow, it wouldn't change that. Let the proper authorities handle it, NOT YOU. Perhaps this is the sense of ironic humor in me showing, but, what happens when the suspect (who they have in custody) is brought to trial, found guilty, and ends up put to death for going all Frank Castle on this doctor? It reaches down into the dark side, but, I kind of hope he is executed, and I am perfectly okay with that. I feel no conflict with my Pro-Life beliefs, because due process would have been served. It is up to the state to determine, not individuals. Let the process work.

1. Is it ever justified to take matters into your own hands, at something you perceive as a grave injustice? I have my own feelings, which are clear, but what are yours?

[jillbean]

Theres taking things in to your own hands and then theres contradicting your own beliefs. I can see where you come from on the whole death penatly thing (although i disagree) but this man had no trial, was not arrested.

Laws are there for a reason. It just discredits your case and does more harm to your cause using vigilanty justice and illegal and imoral actions. How many borderliners (neither pro life nor pro choice) would now support anti abortion groups that for example done the odd protest outside a clinic. Although taking the law into your own hands gets a more imidiate solution that say petitioning, theres also long term conciquences.

personally im pro choice anti death penlty - neither here nor there really, just so you know my perspective.

[robokitty]

There are only certain situations under which I would take the law into my own hands. Fighting against an oppressive/tyrannical government would be one of them. And if someone killed someone I loved and got off the hook... I don't think I'd be able to stand by and let that happen.

[jillbean]

Although they are the only situations which you would take the law into your own hands are they justifable? (so not spelled right). Not saying they arnt or they are.

For example "someone killed someone I loved and got off the hook... I don't think I'd be able to stand by and let that happen."

If they got off the hook theres a certain level of doubt.If you killed them for example are you as bad as them? What about their family who havnt done anything wrong? Would you be able to live with yourself afterwards? Is it worth ruining more lifes (yours, their familys, your familys) for a short term feeling of justice?

[Safyre420]

Quite sad news this is. I didn't fully read the article, got to the part where the WBC was mentioned, rolled my eyes and closed the page. Depending on what the "grave injustice" was, I would take the law into my own hands and I would consider it justifiable, like perhaps I was robbed and I knew/found out who had robbed me, I of course would just go and rob them back but that really is just a petty example.

When you believe abortion is murder, you by necessity have to have animosity towards the ones performing it, it goes with the territory.

I disagree on that, just because one believes abortion is murder doesn't mean that someone has to have animosity to the ones performing it. "Hate the sin not the sinner" is a common phrase passed around by many and does it not hold true in this manner as well? Abortion would be the sin, the doctor would be the sinner, shouldn't you hate the act but not the person performing it?

[longears15]

There are certain, extreme situations - probably those that robokitty suggested - where I would think I may consider taking the law into my own hands. That would be as a last resort - after having tried to work within the bounds of the law to better the situation, and ONLY in a situation with direct impact upon myself and my family.

Davious, you've raised an interesting point. I've always wondered how these rabid Pro-Lifers can truly consider themselves Pro-Life. How can it on one hand be murder to terminate an embryo or foetus, but perfectly acceptable to take the life of a grown person on the other? It's never quite made sense to me...

[lilliandulcia]

Although I greatly disagree with late term abortions (except in cases where it's absolutely necessary for the health of the woman), that is no reason at ALL to murder the man who performs them! It just proves that some "pro life" people are only "pro life" for those in the womb. Once they're out of the womb, they stop caring about the person. It's absolutely disgusting and hypocritical. It's also part of the reason why I prefer to think of pro life people as anti choice.. since so many (though not all, of course) pro life people are only pro life for the fetus but not pro life for every person. Pro life just doesn't describe every person who wants abortions to be illegal, such as the person who murdered this man :(

I can definitely see how some pro life people can be pro death penalty without being hypocrites though. The death penalty is a punishment for serious crimes, some people may view it as a valid punishment. Personally, I'd rather the person suffer their whole life in jail ;D

[Lauren]

I fear for America (and Obama) The right wing Christian fundamentalists are scary. And there is going to be more blood shed from them.

I've recently found my faith again and go to what is considered a 'fundamentalist' Church in my home town. (its the true fundamentalists, getting back to the fundamentals of the Bible) Yet EVERY single person looks at the American fundies and is terrified.

Its time to start calling these anti-abortion (I abhor the term pro-life and pro-choice, let's get it back to the truth) orginisations what they really are. Terrorists. With the cretins, such as Bill O'Reiley, encourging them all the way.

[Doddibot]

Hypothetically, if you saw a crazed gunman gunning down a group of students at a college, and you could shoot the gunman before he kills any more students, would you do so? Personally, I think the answer is yes.

And so, I don't think it's particularly unusual that a person, one who considers abortion to be equal to murder, would kill somebody who has 'murdered' and will 'murder' again. Seems to make sense to me, given the crazy premise that abortion is murder.

[davious]

Longears15, it has to do with the person.

I believe unborn babies are still babies, are still human, and as such, should qualify for all basic civil rights. They are completely incapable of fighting for those rights, are unable to speak up for those rights, so they, first and foremost, need their rights protected. They have no defense against violations of those rights.

Protect the innocent.

A criminal on death row made the decision to strip someone else of their right to life, and I believe that by doing so, they voluntarily give up theirs. There is a huge difference between what this vigilante did, and when a state performs an execution. With the execution, there has been a trial, there has been a legal decision rendered, appeals gone through, etc. When a vigilante does it, as with this situation, there was no trial, there was no legal decision, there were no appeals. There was just a guy who decided to kill the abortion doctor. He took the law into his own hands, just like a murderer on death row took someone else's life into their own hands. If you don't respect someone else's right to life, you forfeit your own. But, it is a matter for the state to decide, not a vigilante.

Punish the guilty.

Doddibot, I think a case could be made that shooting the crazed gunman could count as self-defense (he could turn the gun on you), while an abortion doctor cannot abort an adult. There are plenty of cases of justifiable homicide, when you are protecting your own life, the life of your family, etc.

What also really upsets me, in addition to the anti-vigilante stance, is that this so called Pro-Life guy, who probably claims to be a Christian, chose to do it in a church, a House of God. Maybe he thought it would be symbolic or something, I see it as outright blasphemy. He murdered another human being in a church, and that is absolutely despicable.

[crazy_sanity]

I thought this was awful. That poor man had children and grandchildren- his wife was singing in the choir at the time. I'm extremely religious (though not Christian) and adamantly pro-life however this was an evil thing to do. We live in a country where we can express our opinions safely and legally. If you truly hate abortion, the best thing to do is to use our justice system to try and outlaw it legally. Acts like this give everyone involved, Christians, Pro-lifers, Conservatives an undeserved bad name.

[davious]

If you truly hate abortion, the best thing to do is to use our justice system to try and outlaw it legally.

Exactly right. There are right ways to go about trying to accomplish change, and there are wrong ways to do it. This idiot who killed the doctor definitely was going about it the wrong way.

[blackdaisies]

I am personally anti-abortion but very much pro-choice (if that makes sense. I don't like abortion but I don't believe it should be outlawed). I heard about this killing, and I knew who the guy was from the last time someone tried to kill him. I think he's very brave for continuing to do his work despite all the danger against him. It's sad that he believed that he was safe in his church of all places.

It's strange, as I know some people who support militant activists. I've always said that that kind of activism is awful and it takes away from the cause. I know it's difficult, but setting positive examples would do more for any causes than spewing hate and condemning 'sinners'.

[davious]

It's sad that he believed that he was safe in his church of all places.

Did you maybe mean It's sad that he wasn't safe in his church, of all places? Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that people shouldn't expect churches to be safe havens, but I don't think that is what you were intending...

[Raindrops757]

I am generally anti-abortion, the only circumstance where I feel that abortion should be allowed is when the unborn child will be born in to a very dangerous or abusive life and their living circumstance is not going to improve at all. What I find disturbing is that this abortion protester murdered this man for the reason that he was ending lives before they had begun and yet this protester ended a life in the same way, although it could be considered worse because this man had a life - he had friends and family who loved him and cared about him. It is one thing to stand up for what you believe in and another thing completely to murder someone in cold blood.

[blackdaisies]

That's what i meant, Davious. It's sad that though he believed he was safe, that it wasn't. Killing is despicable all around, but for me there's a much more sad element if it's done where one would think you're generally safe, i.e. school or church.

[TheSimaniac]

I agree completely with Doddibot.

In the gunman's eyes he was saving many lives at the cost of the one, which is true. Just to clear this up before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I'm not 'pro-life' and I don't think for one minute that what he did was even remotely acceptable. But if the gunman saw abortion as the equivalent to murder, then by murdering one man he was stopping that man murdering many more.

The disturbing fact is is that the only we to fault his logic and ethics is to question if abortion really does equal murder. Without doing that (which, of course, people do thankfully) then there's no way of saying his actions were much different to someone assassinating Hitler (who was at no risk of being killed under his rule) at the start of the Holocaust, if you'll forgive the Godwin.
Again, I'm not defending what he did, I'm just trying to look at it from his point of view. If people don't do that then any attempts to understand his actions and why he did it (which could help prevent similar crimes) are ultimately futile.

[Doc Doofus]

I'll lob a hand grenade in here.

Wasn't this an act of terrorism? And aren't the people who support what this guy did also terrorists and sponsors of terrorism?

Full Disclosure: I've joked a long time about my ex-wife being a terrorist. She was involved with the same organization, Operation Rescue, and was even performing community service when we got married, after she had been arrested barricading a Los Angeles abortion clinic for Operation Rescue. She was part of an OR group associated with the fundamentalist San Pedro Assembly of God church, which was led by the brother of Harold Ezell, one of George Bush Sr.'s cabinet members. I'm pro-choice, and I think she is too, now. But I'm VERY familiar with OR. She was involved in it up to her neck. She was on the board of directors of La Cuna. I still find pro-life material in old boxes once in a while, like little plastic sixth-week-fetus keychains. (They actually are kinda cute.)

But I also remember Terry Randall, who was the founder and head honcho of Operation Rescue back then, saying on Nightline with Ted Koppel that he thought that those people who killed abortion clinic workers were justifiable in their actions. He couched it in very weasely terms, and Ted Koppel tried to call him on it, but he diddn't back down. He just smirked and quoted bible verses.

I understand, from watching Wolf Blitzer this morning, that Terry Randall made similar statements justifying abortion clinic violence today.

I guess I wonder, at what point do people involved in pro-life organizations earn the same scrutiny that people with fundamentalist Muslim ties get?

Let's remember, there are worse incidents of violence than this. Remember Eric Rudolph, the bomber of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta Georgia? He didn't get prosecuted for that. He got prosecuted for the abortion clinics he blew up as a side hobby in separate incidents. Why blow up the Olympics? Apparently being pro-life is like a gateway drug to other right-wing paranoia beliefs, like a fear of "One World government."

There is no question that there are people out there who endorse and support this kind of thing, and it's amazing how little they have to hide their actions. There have been sites on-line listing the names and home addresses of abortion clinic workers and their families.

Here we are, arguing about whether it's ever justifiable. I imagine somebody in Saudi Arabia is debating right now whether it's ever justifiable (theoretically) to blow up skyscrapers.

[Lauren]

Wasn't this an act of terrorism? And aren't the people who support what this guy did also terrorists and sponsors of terrorism?

Yes, they are. I'd go so far as to call the far right in America Christian fundamentalist terrorists. (I can't make that work for some reason) Its sickening how many groups have released statements saying "Its sad BUT"

It was only weeks ago that you had the GOP up in arms because the Obama administration was saying that domestic terrorisim would come through the anti-abortion issue. Stupid fuckers.

[Doc Doofus]

Look at this website I found just now with google. There are whole sites dedicated to hating this one man:

http://www.dr-tiller.com/
George Tiller

America's most notorious abortionist



This website takes a revealing look at "Tiller the Killer".

BIOGRAPHY

WHAT METHODS DOES TILLER USE TO KILL BABIES?

WHAT DOES TILLER DO WITH THE DEAD BABIES?

DOES TILLER PERFORM LATE-TERM ABORTIONS ONLY IN CASES OF HARDSHIP?

IS ABORTION SAFE FOR THE WOMAN?

DOES A BABY EVER SURVIVE AN ABORTION?

THE ABORTION CLINIC

STORIES FROM WOMEN WHO HAD ABORTIONS AT TILLER'S CLINIC

AID & COMFORT

POLITICAL INFLUENCE

PROPERTY

THEIR OWN WORDS

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

LIES!

WHAT CAN I DO TO STOP THE KILLING?

SCRIPTURES AND QUOTES

PURPOSE

UPDATES

LINKS

FEEDBACK
HOME

[Xunixeon]

The question is that is it right to not murder animals but murder babies? Or murder humans who murder babies but never murder a fetus?

Both the woman and the doctor are co-conspiracters of abortion according to what the Catholic Church says. But is it right to kill a woman for having an abortion or to kill the doctor before he creates more abortions? The answer is no. I'm strictly prochoice (meaning abortion has to be legal for rape victims and incest victims) but not pro-abandonment, not pro-abuse, and not a Satanist. But I believe Murder is murder regardless if you eat meat, kill the fetus, kill the death row inmate, and kill your mom whether or not she is sick when you're pro-life to the core. It is hard to be extremely pro-life and easier to be pro-death when you reject one of those things. But most right-wingers will come out with nooses for the sex offender and hang him as well as force a woman to have a child against her will. But are they pro-life? Pro-life means
"for life" and needs to involve more than just fetuses and embryos since there is abuse everywhere.

Have you seen the movie in which a woman gives birth to the anti-christ because she was denied the right to abortion after rape?

That is why I'm prochoice. Killing the doctor shows that one is the terrorist for the government right wing instead of respecting the doctors position until for example, you're in the Islamic Country where you would be stoned for killing a fetus. Remember what Philip K. Dick said when you fight against abortion or any other empires, "Fight against the empire and you will be the empire". :deal:

Now I'm not exactly anti-life either since I want to adopt kids as well as have two naturally. But I believe there should be the limit on the kids since we have so many to adopt but never found homes.

[viatoscana]

I'd like to go back to a very important distinction that Lauren made in reference to true fundamentalism "(its the true fundamentalists, getting back to the fundamentals of the Bible)" as opposed to the rabid fundamentalism that seems to give mentally unhealthy people the crazed notion that violence and murder are justifiable in these circumstances...

As the president of the American Association for Atheists once said [please note I am NOT an atheist. I'm quoting her because her words of temperance ring true for all of humanity regardless of your state of faith/unbelief.] "Fundamentalism* is not Orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is a state of Pathology..." I have always believed that to "murder in the name of God" is an act of blasphemy. I am strongly anti-abortion and pro-life. And as such, I frown upon these acts of "fundamentalism" -- that is, the untrue fundamentalism as Lauren would probably put it, that gives over-zealous people the idea that shooting abotion doctors in cold blood is justifiable since, to kill them would, in theory, save hundreds and thousands of lives in their minds.

In my opinion, there must be a really grave disconnect/divorce in the mind of a supposed pro-lifer who feels in the right for doing this sort of thing. And I say 'supposed pro-lifer' because as Lauren essentially made a distinction between true fundamentalism and the patholigical type of fundamentalism, I choose to distinguish between a true pro-lifer [who respects ALL life in every stage from conception to natural death] from a over-zealous mentally unhealthy supposed pro-lifer who totally disregards the law, has no faith in the legal system, and subsequently resorts to vigilantism.

As for what Xunixeon said, "Pro-life means "for life" and needs to involve more than just fetuses and embryos since there is abuse everywhere." Amen to that.


I am saddened by this news and it gives me no consolation whatsoever.

[Mistermook]

I'd happily endorse putting people who have committed and endorsed the murder, harassment, and other illegal activities associated with the "pro-life" movement onto the terrorist watch lists and having their non-profit status removed. I'd propose the same for the radical green and animal rights activists. A dangerous group with a history and/or inclination toward illegal activities is a dangerous group, period.

[Doc Doofus]

Should they be rounded up and held indefinitely without trial until the War Against Terror is over?

[davious]

Actually, this action does not fit into the definition of terrorism, so no, the murderer isn't a terrorist, he is simply a murderer. Here is the United States definition of terrorism, as defined under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping….

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"

Check. This is obviously true, as gunning someone down like that in cold blood is definitely a violation of criminal laws in both the United States and Kansas.

"and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

This is where this man fails the definition. Can you say he was specifically trying to intimidate or coerce the civilian population? No. His threats were always directed toward one man, and one man only, not the population. Nobody other than Dr. Tiller was threatened. Was the killing an attempt to force the Government to rescind Roe Vs Wade? I don't think you can really make that claim either. No threats were issued to the Government. In the crowded church, nobody but the Dr was fired at, nobody else was gunned down. The Doctor was the specific target, an individual, not the congregation.

"or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

Again, I don't think you can make the case here, either. His purpose was not to affect the Government at all, but to simply wipe the late term abortionist off the face of the Earth. This was personal, not an act of terrorism. There was no mass destruction involved here. Given that the statute uses the word assassination rather than murder, that indicates that the meaning refers to Government employees, not normal US citizens. If they had meant to say murder, they would have used murder, not assassination, so there was no assassination. Nor was there any kidnapping attempt. So, he fails this part too.

And Doc is being disingenuous about Eric Rudolph...He wants you to think that Rudolph wasn't charged at all for the Olympic bombing, but he was.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/October/477crm.htm

And, pleading guilty to the Olympic bombing was part of his plea bargain that kept him from getting the death penalty.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/rudolph.plea/index.html

Rudolph will then be transferred to Atlanta, Georgia, where he will plead guilty to the attack at a concert in Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Olympics; two bombings an hour apart at a suburban women's clinic in January 1997; and a bombing at a lesbian nightclub in February that same year.

[robokitty]

Uhhh... civilian doctors who perform abortions and/or are considering going into the practice would feel definitely feel "intimidated or coerced" by such an action.

[davious]

There have been 8 killings of abortion doctors since 1977. That is only one death per every 4 years. Hardly intimidating on the terrorist level. Not any more intimidating than Black Panthers intimidating voters, brandishing lethal weapons, and having their charges dismissed by the Obama administration...

[robokitty]

That's not including assault or arson... and it appears to leave out faculty murders as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[8]


According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").

[Lauren]

There have been 8 killings of abortion doctors since 1977. That is only one death per every 4 years.

Who have been targeted because of what they do for a living.

Incidently, six of them were during Clinton's presidency. So saying eight in 30 years is misleading. Its seven in 17 years.

You don't think the protests outside the clinics are threatening to the civillian population? You don't think the bombings and other attempted murders are threatening to the civillian population?

What always amazes me about these pro-life crazies, is that the MOMENT it affects them they have a very different tune. My reverand at school would blast abortions as murder and how anyone was going straight to hell. His daughter was a couple of years below me. Guess who had an abortion in Year 9? With her father's full backing. To top it all off, two weeks later that scumbag got up and started his anti-abortion speech. Every girl in my class walked out of Chapel that day (along with half the guys)

Even Sarah Palin is pro-choice! She gave a speech not long ago about how she considered having an abortion after finding out she was pregnant as she could do it quietly. She also considered it after finding out Trigg had Downs Syndrome. They also considered it when finding out Bristol was pregnant. Now clearly both had their babies, but its amazing that for a family that is SO pro-'life', they even CONSIDERED abortion! In their world its not an option! (and don't even get me STARTED on how effing stupid they are for having Bristol be an 'ambassador' for abstinence only programs. She's proof positive that they don't work!)

As someone else said, I'm personally anti-abortion. I could never have one, unless I was facing having to carry a baby to term that had no chance of survival. That is the ONLY time I could see myself going through with it. PERSONALLY I do consider it murder (and that view has changed over the past couple of years) because I do believe that it is a baby and that life begins before birth.

Know what? That's MY VIEW that I hold. Which I have a right to hold and to follow. BUT other women don't have that view and that's why I count myself as pro-choice. Because I don't think I have the right to dictate what anyone else should do with their body. Because rightly or wrongly, until that child is viable, it is dependant on the mother and she has the legal right to abort it.

In other words, don't like abortions? Don't have one.

I'm going to finish off with a quote.

"If you can deny women birth control before the initiation of, shall we say, a personal relationship, if you can deny birth control ahead of time, if you can deny a woman emergency contraception at the time of a personal relationship, and if you can deny women abortion services after a pregnancy has become established, then you can control women. Because you will overwhelm them with parenting and child rearing responsibilities. You will be controlled. You will be subjugated. You will be marginalized. And when subjugation walks in, freedom walks out. Now what do I mean? That means gone will be equal opportunity in the work force. Gone will be equal education. Gone will be equal pay for equal work. Gone will be health care benefits. Gone will be retirement benefits. Your freedoms will be gone. Because this is not about babies, again. It's about subjugation of women by male dominated societies. It's no more; it's no less."

Dr George Tiller.

etaForgot that swearing isn't *** out here, so have modified that.

[xoxSugah]

1. Is it ever justified to take matters into your own hands, at something you perceive as a grave injustice? I have my own feelings, which are clear, but what are yours?

Sometimes, I think so.
There was a man back home who was being robbed every month for his disability check and his welfare. I think it was welfare. Anyway he had two checks coming every month. These addicts were breaking into his house every month and stealing the old man's medicine and money. The police never caught these guys even though the poor old thing had told them what DAY they'd be breaking in.
They beat him half to death one night and after he got out of the hospital he cleaned his rifle and then, the day he got his checks, he sat with it aimed at his bedroom door and waited. When they kicked in his bedroom door he fired.
The one that was in front got his knees blown out from under him and the other two ran.

The police couldn't/wouldn't catch them and the old man was in danger of dying (not just because of these guys getting more and more violent, but he was going without his meds). In cases like that I think, yes, you should take care of it yourself if you can at all.

Shooting an unarmed man in church though? No. There's no justifying that.

[davious]

xoxSugah, what you described is a classic case of self-defense. They were clearly trespassing on his property, because they beat him up, he had reason to believe they would harm him, so, in that situation, I think it is clearly justified. They were robbing him. Self defense is a well established reason.

[xoxSugah]

Yep, but you'd be surprised how many people said it wasn't self-defense because he knew they'd be coming that night. They said he should've just called the police.

[davious]

According to your story, he did, many times previously. The authorities refused to take care of it by their complete inaction, so based on that, I don't see a problem with his actions whatsoever. Plus, while it is difficult to know how good a shot the man was, if he hit the one victim in the knee, that sounds like he wasn't trying to kill, merely to disable/cripple. You have to be a REALLY bad shot to aim for the head and hit the knees...The criminals should be thankful it was a rifle, and not a shotgun...

[xoxSugah]

Exactly. In something like that I don't see any problem with "taking the law into your own hands".
He didn't wanna kill anybody. He was just desperate for it to stop and couldn't get help.

[willwrightfan]

This is absolutely horrible. Normal people don't kill people in churches. Although, normal people don't kill at all. So what I mean is, this is awful. Not only did someone lose their life for no good reason, but they were murdered for doing something that there is nothing wrong with. People should have the right to get an abortion if they want, but if people don't agree with that, they can do it calmly. I know I sound like a parent disciplining two kids for not settling things nicely, but it's true. If you have a problem with something, take it up with the state or whatever. Don't kill people who have different beleifs than you.

[Doc Doofus]

Please don't call me disingenuous without better reason. especially over such a trivial point. I just didn't know. I'm glad Eric Rudolph was convicted for the Olympics bombing in his final disposition, but all the reporting prior to that was that he was probably guilty but they would probably never have sufficient evidence to get him for it, and that's why they were focused almost exclusively on the abortion clinic bombings.

I disagree with you about this:
"and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

There can be no question that medical providers (and they are a sizable population, have been intimidated, and in many cases successfully. The total number of deaths only touches on the amount of violence wreaked in order to create that total in terms of failed attempts, clinics blown up, and people fearing for their own lives. The killing of Tiller wasn't personal -- this was politically motivated. I'm sure we will find that the killer had no prior personal connection to Tiller, but we know he did have longstanding ties to OR and even more extremist pro-life groups and publications.

You can't win on this point. There is a ton of documentation of pro-life speeches advocating violence, not just against abortion doctors but against judges as well.

[davious]

What is trivial about you claiming that Rudolph wasn't charged or convicted on the Olympic bombings, just on the abortion clinic crimes, when in fact, he was charged and convicted on the Olympic bombings?

Let's remember, there are worse incidents of violence than this. Remember Eric Rudolph, the bomber of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta Georgia? He didn't get prosecuted for that. He got prosecuted for the abortion clinics he blew up as a side hobby in separate incidents.

Your words...I simply provided the evidence to prove it wrong. You are using supposition and guesswork to try to disprove fact? Gimme a break. If you didn't know, you should have done a quick google search or something.

Its fine that you disagree...but where is the evidence that this guy was targeting ANYONE other than Dr. Tiller? You cannot claim he is a terrorist using that particular aspect of the legal definition of it, without demonstrating how he threatened abortion doctors as a group, and not just this one individual. The burden is to prove this one man fits into the legal definition of being a terrorist, not the entire group of pro-life activists. Dr. Tiller was a medical provider...but, he was a medical provider that performed abortions, which reduces the "sizable population" down significantly...further, Dr. Tiller was one of only a very small handful of doctors who perform late term abortions, reducing your "sizable population down even more. The general civilian population wasn't threatened at all by the shooting. He shot at nobody but Tiller. He wasn't out to kill any "civilians", just that one man. I never said he was justified, never advocated what happened, but, it simply does not fit the legal definition of "terrorism".

But, if you want to claim it is because there is a ton of documentation of pro life speeches advocating violence, then, playing devil's advocate for a second, it is just as fair for me to claim that Obama is a terrorist, because he dismissed charges of clear voter intimidation against two black panther members. The facts in that case leave absolutely no doubt that it was voter intimidation, against the laws of the United States, but, Obama let them off the hook. They threatened the civilian population, brandished potentially lethal weapons, and attempted to disrupt the US government and its legal voting practices by intimidating people to vote for Democrats. They fit the legal definition better than this guy does. So, Obama willingly aiding terrorism, because there is a ton of documentation of Black Panther speeches advocating violence against the white devil...

[Doc Doofus]

You keep bringing up this black panther thing, which I know nothing about, and I'd be willing to read about it in another thread, but otherwise, it's a distraction. This is your thread, so bring it up here if you want, I suppose, but it seems a distraction that needs explanation.

And maybe you can lower the temperature a little. Jeez, I stood up for you a few posts back. We're people who have known each other and debated on a gaming site for some years now. I'd like to think we are friendly rivals.

[davious]

You know nothing about it, because you only read the stuff on Daily Kos, who of course isn't going to cover it...The point was, that if you are going to claim that the murderer of Dr Tiller is automatically a terrorist, there are counter examples out there...His actions were deplorable. Nobody is disputing that, and the fact that he did in the House of God sickens me to no end...but, that alone does not make him a terrorist. I looked up the legal definition of "terrorist" according to the United States legal code, and what happened there simply does not meet the standard set forth in that legal code. Murderer? Yep. Pretty clear cut. Should he get the death penalty? In my opinion, Yep, pre-meditated murder in a state that still has the death penalty? How stupid do you have to be? He should fry...Does that mean I am automatically going to brand him a terrorist? Nope. When you first posted that bit about your ex-wife, and then applied "terrorist" to this situation, I got curious. I wanted to know exactly what was terrorism, according to the law. Not according to gut instincts, but, according to the letter of the law. Perhaps my interest in the actual wording comes from my father being an attorney and former judge, being around it all the time as a kid, perhaps it is from college, where I minored in political science and took a few Constitutional Law classes. I don't know. I just like knowing what the law actually states. Looking at how the law is worded, which I posted, and then analyzed, I could not come to the opinion that he met the criteria needed in order to be legally considered a terrorist. Since when is being a cold blooded murderer not enough? You actually helped my case, by pointing out that there are anti-Tiller websites. That indicated that it was more likely a personal vendetta against Tiller, and Tiller specifically, rather than a general vendetta against civilians. If he had started shooting random people at the church, for not excommunicating Tiller or something like that, perhaps it would be different. But, it was Tiller, and only Tiller who was targeted. When the action is directed at one person, and one person only, that isn't a terrorist act. It is cold blooded, pre-meditated murder. Seriously, that should be enough, shouldn't it?

[Safyre420]

Since we're throwing around the term terrorist, let's name off a few more people that can be called terrorists shall we:

The American Gov't
Dubya
WBC

just to name a few.

Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies." So going by that definition a great deal of the populace of America are terrorists. The guy who murdered Dr Tiller, yes he would be considered a terrorist, much like the WBC who are worse terrorists than that guy is. As I like to say, the war on terror will never be finished as there will always be a terrorist in some shape or form, there is no way to completely rid the world of terrorists and by imposing fear upon the terrorists we're after, we are in fact being terrorists ourselves.

[Doc Doofus]

Of course it's not a vendetta against all civilians. But Tiller was a civilian, and he was part of a group of civilians that were targeted by groups that he was actively involved with, that target being abortion service providers. I read a list of the groups and people that he was involved with in a diary on DailyKos, which I won't paste here. There's no need to. Operation Rescue is enough.

As to the Black Panthers, I'm no expert on the legal definition of terror, but I've always understood it to be that the Black Panther Party or else just some derivatives of it constituted a terrorist organization back in the 70s. If they are tolerated in a less virulent form today, that's interesting, but not that interesting. If Obama did something that let Black Panthers get away with something, that too could be interesting BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT. In fact, Obama could be a terrorist himself, he could be Bin Laden, I could be Bin Laden, you could be, and none of that has jack to do with the question I asked.

I'll tell you what I think:

1. I think what Tiller did was an act of terrorism. And apparently Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin both agree about that now, too.

2. There are right-wing organizations in this country that are as loose and reckless with their language in a way that can foster violence.

3. I don't think that any of that would be an excuse for using the tools of the Patriot Act against social conservative organizations.

4. I think that as Americans, we have rights that deserve to be protected regardless of our political affiliations. Groups and individuals that encourage acts like Tiller's killer have to answer for themselves, but there should be rules that have to be followed in spying on them or detaining them or interrogating them or putting them on trial. You can't just say, "They're all terrorists, we gotta get them all now before they kill another abortion provider, whose side are you on!"

[supersimoholic]

abortion isn't a bad thing.
i understand it's painful for someone to give up something that might someday be a child, but in my opinion, if someone is not ready to have a baby and they end up getting pregnant, abortions is the best option for everyone becasue -

1. the mother may resent the baby for making her give up her "life"
2. the mother may not be able to give the bab everything it needs.
3. the mother may have been raped.
4. i know there's always adoption, but the child will always wonder "why there real parents didn't love them"

I mean, i know people should be more careful, but there are always accidents and pregnancy is the conciquence. but a baby should be a conciquence. a baby should be some thing that is planned or atleast brought into a family that can afforst to give ti what it needs so it can grow up happy and healthy

[Xunixeon]

abortion isn't a bad thing.
i understand it's painful for someone to give up something that might someday be a child, but in my opinion, if someone is not ready to have a baby and they end up getting pregnant, abortions is the best option for everyone becasue -

1. the mother may resent the baby for making her give up her "life"
2. the mother may not be able to give the bab everything it needs.
3. the mother may have been raped.
4. i know there's always adoption, but the child will always wonder "why there real parents didn't love them"

I mean, i know people should be more careful, but there are always accidents and pregnancy is the conciquence. but a baby should be a conciquence. a baby should be some thing that is planned or atleast brought into a family that can afforst to give ti what it needs so it can grow up happy and healthy

But the religious right will tell you that you're rejecting God's gift and that adoption is the best option. Tell me why there are so many American babies in adoption and foster care when there are people adopting the Chinese babies.

I agree abortion should be the option but if you don't want a baby, there are options before conception as well like abstinence, condoms, birth control pills, and Plan B just in case you have a conception occuring. I think that even though a woman may feel like she murdered a child, there is one woman that said, "that it is still okay." A woman may feel regret for having a child too because a child is something that changes your life for eternity. For me, I would like to have an abortion when it comes to unplanned pregnancies but I know I have to wait until I have enough money and support to take care of the child.

[supersimoholic]

For me, I would like to have an abortion when it comes to unplanned pregnancies but I know I have to wait until I have enough money and support to take care of the child.

I am the same. I mean, me and my boyfriend are happy and we're going to have children someday (well, i've told him as soon as i'm out of college i'm going off the injection, and he seemed fine with it) but if i got pregnant now (sometimes that can happen even with the injection) i'd have an abortion cause i know we're not ready and I don't want anything to ruin our relationship, and i know he is not ready to be a dad.

[Safyre420]

To be honest, I don't think the religious right wing should define how we live our lives(abortions, gay marriage, etc). But sadly they'll be able to due to the people we have in power in the federal gov't. I just wish I could live to see the day that My mother and myself aren't seen as bad people due to how we are/choices we've made. I'm moderately pro-choice, my mother has had an abortion(1st child) and did adoption(2nd child) then came my brother and I(I'm the 4th), I actually attempted to talk about the adoption and I had basically raised hell when I did that so I didn't even bother with bringing up why my mother had an abortion. So please when you all make judgements(not saying any of you all are) or your friends make judgements encourage them to think in the other persons shoes. Not everyone is of the same religion and background so why should we all have to abide by the abrahamic religions' guidelines?

[davious]

To be honest, I don't think the religious right wing should define how we live our lives(abortions, gay marriage, etc). But sadly they'll be able to due to the people we have in power in the federal gov't. I just wish I could live to see the day that My mother and myself aren't seen as bad people due to how we are/choices we've made. I'm moderately pro-choice, my mother has had an abortion(1st child) and did adoption(2nd child) then came my brother and I(I'm the 4th), I actually attempted to talk about the adoption and I had basically raised hell when I did that so I didn't even bother with bringing up why my mother had an abortion. So please when you all make judgements(not saying any of you all are) or your friends make judgements encourage them to think in the other persons shoes. Not everyone is of the same religion and background so why should we all have to abide by the abrahamic religions' guidelines?

Ummm, what? The religious right can control how you live your lives, because of the power in the Federal government? You are aware that a liberal Democrat is President, and that Democrats have control over both the Senate and House of Representatives? Exactly what Right wing conservatives currently have any power in Washington DC?

Further, if you are so concerned with the power of the Federal Government being able to control your life, how come you have staunchly defended its power? I, and many other conservatives, who you would label "right wing", have been talking about the need to reduce the power of the Federal Government for years! If you don't want anyone in DC to have the power to tell you how you must live your life, then you should support the reduction of that power...

[Zoxell]

I will also jump in on this one.

I believe in plain human decency, that life is life from the time of conception to the time of natural death. Many have justified the act of abortion (the termination of a human life ...however premature) as a “right” for the convenience of the mother. Quote the law books, legal precedent, or perceived “rights” all you want. Killing a human… even a premature human dependent upon its mother for life, is fundamentally wrong. I find it laughable how easily people discard the reality of what abortion is, to protect a lifestyle.

Rape, incest, and murder are the most base and deplorable of human behaviors. But to kill a child produced by these acts; a child, who would otherwise have lived a full healthy life, is simply wrong. To kill a child because a woman does not “want” it is far, far worse.

Now, I also denounce the actions of the shooter and believe he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, I absolutely feel no grief for the victim, outside of the fact that yet another human life was ended because of abortion. I certainly cannot call the victim a Hero.

And let us suppose, for a moment, that Roe v Wade is one day overturned and abortion becomes the equivalent of murder. Does that now make abortion doctors mass-murderers and terrorists?

[Safyre420]

Ummm, what? The religious right can control how you live your lives, because of the power in the Federal government? You are aware that a liberal Democrat is President, and that Democrats have control over both the Senate and House of Representatives? Exactly what Right wing conservatives currently have any power in Washington DC?

Further, if you are so concerned with the power of the Federal Government being able to control your life, how come you have staunchly defended its power? I, and many other conservatives, who you would label "right wing", have been talking about the need to reduce the power of the Federal Government for years! If you don't want anyone in DC to have the power to tell you how you must live your life, then you should support the reduction of that power...

Yes the religious right does control how I can live my life due to their ancient text and their loud mouths. Doesn't matter who is president, the religious right is in both the Republicans and the Democrats. Also, it's not the lawmakers that are the problem, it's the people that encourage the lawmakers to be biased to their(the people) views on how people should live. Abortion and Gay Marriage are 2 classic examples of this. So what if you believe abortion is murder, who gives you(general you) the right to decide what's best for someone else?

[davious]

Yes the religious right does control how I can live my life due to their ancient text and their loud mouths. Doesn't matter who is president, the religious right is in both the Republicans and the Democrats.

So, the religious right is both the religious right and the religious left? I don't think you will find too many Democrats who consider themselves part of the religious right. You are confusing people with faith with religious right, which is a much more specific segment...

Also, it's not the lawmakers that are the problem, it's the people that encourage the lawmakers to be biased to their(the people) views on how people should live?

So, basically, you are against Democracy, because you just summed up Democracy right there...Are you arguing that lawmakers have to be completely devoid of personal opinions? That they shouldn't take into account the needs and desires of their constituents? That they should set themselves apart from everyone else? How on earth would any elected official survive a re-election if they didn't take into consideration the views of the people that elected them in the first place?

Abortion and Gay Marriage are 2 classic examples of this. So what if you believe abortion is murder, who gives you(general you) the right to decide what's best for someone else?

Turn this around...So what if you believe abortion isn't murder, who gives you(general you) the right to decide whether an unborn child is better of living or dying? Aren't they "someone else"?

[Safyre420]

So, the religious right is both the religious right and the religious left? I don't think you will find too many Democrats who consider themselves part of the religious right. You are confusing people with faith with religious right, which is a much more specific segment...

Actually I consider the religious right all the outspoken religious people that impose their beliefs on other people, the lawmakers can prevent those beliefs from being imposed but many of them hold the same beliefs so many don't try to prevent them from being imposed thus they get lumped in with the rest of them.


So, basically, you are against Democracy, because you just summed up Democracy right there...Are you arguing that lawmakers have to be completely devoid of personal opinions? That they shouldn't take into account the needs and desires of their constituents? That they should set themselves apart from everyone else?

They shouldn't be devoid of personal opinions but they should take into account of what their constituents want above their own personal opinions and not listen to the religious right(some of the time).



Turn this around...So what if you believe abortion isn't murder, who gives you(general you) the right to decide whether an unborn child is better of living or dying? Aren't they "someone else"?

I do believe abortion is murder but only after the clump of cells actually forms a human, while it's still a clump of cells, that's all it is nothing more nothing less. So while it's still just a clump of cells, abortion is perfectly alright. Women should(and do) have the choice to end an unwanted pregnancy, like pregnancies from rape or incest, and nobody should tell them that they can't if their beliefs differ. If you believe that the women that receive abortions and the doctors that perform them are going to Hell, believe that and move on, don't force your views down their throat.

[Zoxell]

I do believe abortion is murder but only after the clump of cells actually forms a human, while it's still a clump of cells, that's all it is nothing more nothing less.

And that's just it. You and I were both "clumps of cells", and yet we are still human. We forget so easily and allow our conscience to be stroked by a vocal minority who tell us that "It's okay, because the science of it tells us so"
...Sounds awefully familiar to what some claim to be religious zealotry.

It is no more "okay" to end the life of a person, however immature, because it is unwanted - than it is to kill a doctor in cold blood. Legally, yes, it is permissable. But is is wrong.

[Safyre420]

And that's just it. You and I were both "clumps of cells", and yet we are still human. We forget so easily and allow our conscience to be stroked by a vocal minority who tell us that "It's okay, because the science of it tells us so"
...Sounds awefully familiar to what some claim to be religious zealotry.

It is no more "okay" to end the life of a person, however immature, because it is unwanted - than it is to kill a doctor in cold blood. Legally, yes, it is permissable. But is is wrong.

Yes at one point in time everyone was just a clump of cells, in fact we are still clumps of cells but different, the cells have more purpose than just endlessly dividing. I pretty much sit on the fence in the big debate of which is better, abortion vs adoption, mainly due to the fact that I'm the 4th child my parents had, the 1st was aborted and the second was put up for adoption. If someone wants to get an abortion, let them it's their choice to make not yours.

[Zoxell]

If someone wants to get an abortion, let them it's their choice to make not yours.

I do not presume to have the authority to tell anybody what to do. My point is that it is unconscionable and no more a "choice" than it is for a mother to kill her birthed children. Legally, yes. Humanely, no.

[Safyre420]

I do not presume to have the authority to tell anybody what to do. My point is that it is unconscionable and no more a "choice" than it is for a mother to kill her birthed children. Legally, yes. Humanely, no.

it wasn't a specific "you" just a general.

[davious]

They shouldn't be devoid of personal opinions but they should take into account of what their constituents want above their own personal opinions and not listen to the religious right(some of the time).

If the "religious right" (I still think you are using the wrong term, because you include GOP and Dems alike) didn't make up a very large percentage of that elected person's constituency, how powerful do you think they would be? You criticize them because they hold some sway over politicians, while failing to grasp the reason that is so. If the "religious right" were a small minority voice, politicians wouldn't bother listening to them at all. They are listened to by some politicians because those politicians know that those "religious right" people make up a large chunk of their voting base.

I imagine that politicians in San Francisco pay a lot more attention to gay/lesbian PACs than a politician would in say, Des Moines. Why? Because they know if they ignored groups like GLAAD, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in that city, district, whatever, because of the large gay and lesbian community. However, a politician in Des Moines has far fewer constituents that meet that criteria, so they don't need to cater to their whims like a San Francisco politician would. The Des Moines politician DOES have to pay attention to the needs of the Agricultural community however, something the San Francisco politician would not.

In between the two coasts, is what I like to call "real" America. The Heartland, it has been called. The values of the midwest, the south, the rockies, etc are far different than those in NYC or LA. Further, when you consider that only about 14% of Americans don't identify with any religion, (meaning that 86% of Americans claim to believe in God, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other) and you can see why religious voices are going to be fairly loud in comparison to other groups.

[Lauren]

I'm going to post this article here. (since this is slowly turning into an abortion discussion) The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html) The story talks about doctors and nurses and clinic workers who have had the regular phenomenon of anti-abortion people coming in and having abortions. Because they're DIFFERENT.

Two things I want to point out from that article

The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women.

Survey was in 1981. The obvious inference to draw from that is that Catholic women are much less likely to use any birth control and are therefore more in need of abortions.

A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.

Now this has no statistical data, but wouldn't suprise me.

There are some good stories at the end, with one women writing a wonderful thank you note and another women noting that she had been anti-abortion but upon having her own realised how wrong she was. She went on to be an abortion provider.

You are confusing people with faith with religious right, which is a much more specific segment...

Very good point. Just because someone is religious does not make them a fundamentalist/extreemist.

So what if you believe abortion isn't murder, who gives you(general you) the right to decide whether an unborn child is better of living or dying? Aren't they "someone else"?

Who's saying that? Are we now talking about forced abortions?

The whole point of pro-choice is that its the WOMAN'S decision. No-one else gets to decide for her.

If the "religious right" were a small minority voice, politicians wouldn't bother listening to them at all. They are listened to by some politicians because those politicians know that those "religious right" people make up a large chunk of their voting base.

Voice is the right term here. The religious right (and I'm talking about the extremists here) are a minority, yet they yell loud enough to be quite heavily involved in the GOP. Ironically George Bush the 1st warned the GOP to not let the right-wing extremists and/or religious right-wing infiltrate the party. That has very clearly been ignored. It might have got them four years of Bush the 2nd, but if the GOP continues on in the same fashion its in for a very long winter.

[Zoxell]

The whole point of pro-choice is that its the WOMAN'S decision. No-one else gets to decide for her.

What I have been saying all along is that there is no choice in the matter. A woman has no right to choose the death of an unborn child any more than she has the right to choose the death of a birthed child. To say there is a difference is ludicrous.

We have been conditioned by years of political force-feeding into believing that this is a "medical procedure" and a women's rights issue. In reality it is a human rights issue. When you stop to think about the reality of what takes place to complete an abortion, I say shame on anybody who believes otherwise.

[Lauren]

A woman has no right to choose the death of an unborn child any more than she has the right to choose the death of a birthed child. To say there is a difference is ludicrous.

We have been conditioned by years of political force-feeding into believing that this is a "medical procedure" and a women's rights issue. In reality it is a human rights issue. When you stop to think about the reality of what takes place to complete an abortion, I say shame on anybody who believes otherwise.

Know what? I agree with you. I said my view earlier in the post.

But just because you and I believe that doesn't mean others believe that. And I am adult enough, human enough to realise that it is up to the woman and ONLY the woman.

Abortions have been happening for years. Except before they became legal women died because of them. Remember the scene in Riding in Cars with Boys, where Drew Barrymore was throwing herself down the stairs to try and miscarry? There were backyard clinics before it became legal. Where women died.

Women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies. While the baby is dependent on the woman to survive, the women has a right to have an abortion.

It all boils down to, don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

What makes me sick with the abortion debate is the evil bastards who are anti-abortion, but are also anti-birth control! Because the best way to lower the abortion rate is by stopping women having access to birth control!

[davious]

These are questions for the folks who are opposed to choice:

What do you think happens to women as a class when they are all forced into mandatory pregnancy?

Ummm, who exactly is being forced into mandatory pregnancy? You are aware, I assume, that there are things called condoms? They prevent pregnancy. There are also little pills, spermicidal jellies, the ability to say "no", and a little thing called not sleeping with everyone. This is why pro-choice people are so hard to take seriously, you act like women have no responsibility at all when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't engage in behavior that will cause you to get pregnant. Easy enough solution.



Are you aware that the legal definition of slavery is "forced work without compensation"? Pregnancy is "work", you know.

So, it is your opinion then, that children have no worth, no value whatsoever?


There really shouldn't be any debate... There is zero logic or morality in enforced slavery, or in encouraging systematic terrorism by killing abortion providers. The issue of abortion needs to be one of those things that while someone may not agree with it or have one themselves, for the good of humanity and human rights, abortion must be legal and accessible for those who need it.

Good thing pregnancy is not enforced slavery then, huh? And, for the good of humanity and human rights? Seriously? Exactly what part of abortion is good for the humanity and human rights of those unborn babies?

I'm still wanting a male birth control pill, so men can finally have reproductive freedom.

You do realize, that this last statement completely invalidates your entire argument? You acknowledge that the pill gives women reproductive freedom, by lamenting the lack of existence of a male counterpart...However, if the pill gives women reproductive freedom, they can't be slaves, can they? If a woman refuses to exercise her reproductive freedom by refusing to take birth control properly, whether it is the pill, forcing her partner to wear a condom, whatever, then when she gets pregnant, doesn't she really only have her and her partner to blame? Calling that "slavery" is absolutely laughable. Try accepting some damn personal responsibility for your actions BEFORE a pregnancy occurs, instead of waiting until after it is too late.

[Zoxell]

These are questions for the folks who are opposed to choice:


Argue whatever points you will. The reality of it is cut-and-dry. Women who "choose" to abort a child are ending the life of a human being. Granted, this human being is premature and solely dependent upon the mother for its very survival. But let's call it what it is.

I am not denying that women deserve every opportunity that men enjoy. Since the beginning of time, the female gender has been the bearer of the next generation (which coincidently renders your somewhat silly slavery argument invalid). It is the way nature propegates itself. It is our culture and lifestyle that has turned a fundimental trusim in nature into an inconvenience to upward mobility and unburdened sexual activity.

There really shouldn't be any debate... There is zero logic or morality in enforced slavery, or in encouraging systematic terrorism by killing abortion providers.
If you honestly and truly believe that pregnancy is forced labor, then I have no avenue for voicing a logical debate in this matter with you, simply because the statement is based on your emotional attachment to the topic and not on rational thought.

I have already stated that the shooter in this crime should be proscecuted to the full extent of the law. He lowered himself to the same level as the victim in knowingly and willfully erasing a human life. The only systematic terror here is the death toll that "choice" has exacted on the human race.

[Xunixeon]

Zoxell, I understand where you're coming from since when I was 14, I believed every abortion is the act against God himself until I understood the reality of unwanted pregnancies. However, Most Catholics are also against abortion and you will find more religious Catholics in the Mid-West not believing in abortions than other places in the US, simply because they were raised morally on that issue when they're little kids. My Mom was a pro-lifer herself and she gave birth to me because back then they did genetic testing after every miscarriage or faulty pregnancy and she refused. You could say that since I'm pro-choice, I'm ungrateful to my mom. Since I'm also pro-autistic kids, I will say that I give birth to those who been genetically diagnosed with autism since I felt they are capable of giving their worth to our society.

[Zoxell]

However, Most Catholics are also against abortion and you will find more religious Catholics in the Mid-West not believing in abortions than other places in the US, simply because they were raised morally on that issue when they're little kids.

I genuinely respect your convictions (or lack thereof) to a higher power, wherever they may rest. But, religion aside, abortion is an assault on humanity itself; completely contrary to the natural order that has established itself from the time life first emerged from the primordial goo.

I continue to boggle over the double standards of all people involved. Those in favor of killing unborn children, are outraged at the death of a single person ...who kills for a living. Then there are those who are against killing unborn children who go ahead and kill those who perform abortion. Who likely end up being executed.

What has happened to this country?

Life is life, and each individual is fully entitled to it... criminal or not; born or not... regardless of whether it inconveniences a woman for a period of time or not.

[lilliandulcia]

I genuinely respect your convictions (or lack thereof) to a higher power, wherever they may rest. But, religion aside, abortion is an assault on humanity itself; completely contrary to the natural order that has established itself from the time life first emerged from the primordial goo.

I continue to boggle over the double standards of all people involved. Those in favor of killing unborn children, are outraged at the death of a single person ...who kills for a living. Then there are those who are against killing unborn children who go ahead and kill those who perform abortion. Who likely end up being executed.

What has happened to this country?

Life is life, and each individual is fully entitled to it... criminal or not; born or not... regardless of whether it inconveniences a woman for a period of time or not.
Pregnancy is more than just an inconvenience. It's life changing, it risks the woman's life no matter how healthy the pregnancy is, it causes her to completely change her life for 10 months as well as afterward (her body will never be the same, she'll always have the mental trauma of being forced to carry a pregnancy, she'll either keep her kid or have the mental trauma of putting him/her up for adoption, etc). The abortion doctor who was murdered actually SAVED lives. The large majority of late term abortions are of pregnancies that would end in death of the mother or the fetus or both. Also, not all pro choice people are pro abortion (nor is anyone IN FAVOR of abortions which would imply that we think all/most of pregnancies should end in abortion). Many of us hate that abortions have to happen but it's a necessary evil. Without legal abortions, abortions will still happen at the same exact rate as they do now.. the only difference being that women are more likely to become infertile from them, more likely to DIE from them, and more likely to be harmed in other ways (such as being raped by whomever is performing the illegal abortion but not being able to report it to authorities unless she admits she was getting an abortion).
Of course we are going to be outraged at the murder of a man who was saving lives. It's disgusting to think that people (like you, seemingly) actually agree with his murder.

[Xunixeon]

The only thing that I know that that prevents pregnancy 100% is being abstinent and keeping your legs tied even after marriage. It doesn't mean you could prevent stds in some cases like a kiss or something like that (in the case of herpes in two flavors) But it means you abstain from genital and anal and other contact dealing with getting you pregnant (no humping even with clothes on please). Sex is like alcohol, you drink a little too much, you get buzzed and a nasty feeling. If you drink more of it, you get drunk. If you do it everyday, you become an addict if you do it more than several times per week. Now there is a special prize for having sex all of the time and it's three words, Baby, Shame, and Disease. You could have an abortion but you might end up being called a babykiller and in the future in Philip K. Dick's book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? , you would be in prison for the life for killing a fetus.

That is why to prevent more abortions and to prevent more doctors, you either abstain or use birth control with uppermost caution to prevent the life from being aborted (I recommend condoms with spermicide to kill the sperm or just plain chastity belts with fingerpad for the person like the husband to press the numbers in)

[Zoxell]

Many of us hate that abortions have to happen but it's a necessary evil. Without legal abortions, abortions will still happen at the same exact rate as they do now.. the only difference being that women are more likely to become infertile from them, more likely to DIE from them, and more likely to be harmed in other ways (such as being raped by whomever is performing the illegal abortion but not being able to report it to authorities unless she admits she was getting an abortion).
Of course we are going to be outraged at the murder of a man who was saving lives. It's disgusting to think that people (like you, seemingly) actually agree with his murder.

I have repeatedly condemned the shooter for taking a life, I'm not sure where you have missed that. I do not have statistical data to make an arugment about the reasons for abortion. I suspect a large majority are "unwanted" as opposed to rape and/or health issues for the mother.

I think I have made my case pretty clearly, and those of you who are following this can toss it around in your conscience and see what comes of it. I have long ago decided that there are not many circumstances where killing an unborn child is an acceptable solution for any situation. I think also, that I have contributed all I am able to this conversation ...and appreciate the mostly tempered responses from the community.

We certianly are not going to solve this problem on these forums.

[Zoxell]

and in the future in Philip K. Dick's book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Fantastic read, and not a bad movie. I'll need to find this book and read it again. :up:
I also highly recommend Neuromancer and The Difference Engine by William Gibson.

[lilliandulcia]

Zoxell, the large majority of LATE TERM abortions are due to health problems (those who simply don't want their child will have had the abortion before it becomes late term). Staying pregnant is still a life risk for every woman though, so those who get an abortion because they don't want a child would still have a higher risk of death for staying pregnant rather than aborting and no longer being pregnant.

No woman should be forced to stay pregnant with a child she doesn't want (and most likely wouldn't take care of which could lead to miscarriage/stillbirth/injury in the womb or death/injury after birth). It is a PERFECTLY acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Xunixeon, 54% of people who get abortions were using birth control that failed. Yes, more should.. which is why real sex education needs to be available to everyone (no "abstinence only" or poor education that doesn't cover birth control well) as well as free/extremely cheap forms of birth control need to be available to everyone. You can't expect people to abstain unless they want children (I don't think you meant to imply that you believe that though).

[Xunixeon]

Of course I don't believe in abstinence. That is why there are options.

[Lauren]

Ummm, who exactly is being forced into mandatory pregnancy? You are aware, I assume, that there are things called condoms? They prevent pregnancy. There are also little pills, spermicidal jellies, the ability to say "no", and a little thing called not sleeping with everyone.

Yes, because of COURSE women who have abortions are just big old sluts who slee with everyone aren't they? It gets back to the fact that the majority of anti-abortion people are plain old misogynists.

Did you ignore my point that there is quite a loud anti-abortion group that are at this very momenet spreading their lies that the Pill kills? Or the Catholics who have been taught their whole lives that condoms are agianst God's will? (and PLEASE I would LOVE to be shown where the Bible says this)

The BIG problem with abstinance only education is that it teaches that sex is dirty and wrong. So when teenagers find themselves in a situation where they're having sex, they can't go out and purchase the pill, or condoms because that would be pre-planning. Bristol Palin is the perfect example. Taught abstinance only education her whole life, ends up pregeneant at 17. (and I can't really condemn her for being the face of pro-abstinance campagin, I can see a lot of her family's doing in that one. It saddened me to see her father refer to the baby, his grandson as 'Brstol's mistake')

This is why pro-choice people are so hard to take seriously, you act like women have no responsibility at all when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't engage in behavior that will cause you to get pregnant. Easy enough solution.

Part of the responsibility is abortion. Whether you like that or not, its true.

[Xunixeon]

Yes, because of COURSE women who have abortions are just big old sluts who slee with everyone aren't they? It gets back to the fact that the majority of anti-abortion people are plain old misogynists.

Did you ignore my point that there is quite a loud anti-abortion group that are at this very momenet spreading their lies that the Pill kills? Or the Catholics who have been taught their whole lives that condoms are agianst God's will? (and PLEASE I would LOVE to be shown where the Bible says this)

The BIG problem with abstinance only education is that it teaches that sex is dirty and wrong. So when teenagers find themselves in a situation where they're having sex, they can't go out and purchase the pill, or condoms because that would be pre-planning. Bristol Palin is the perfect example. Taught abstinance only education her whole life, ends up pregeneant at 17. (and I can't really condemn her for being the face of pro-abstinance campagin, I can see a lot of her family's doing in that one. It saddened me to see her father refer to the baby, his grandson as 'Brstol's mistake')


Part of the responsibility is abortion. Whether you like that or not, its true.

Only if the pill fails or the condom breaks should you have the time to have an abortion. I do know that one of my mom's friend said that the girl who had a baby outside of wedlock named her "Miss Fortune" which sounds like the baby is a misfortune to have for her. That is why you have to be comprehensive about condoms and the ways to deal with breakages as well as other birth control in school and at home. Of course, the Catholic church said that as long as you use the Pill for medical but not contraceptive reasons, that would be fine. Of course, I also used the pill for contraceptive reason but that doesn't make me a fat old slut. It makes me human to want contact but being a human means you have to have responsibility.

I agree that having abortions is the part of responsibility but there are ways people can be not responsible with it, like having abortions as a form of contraception.

[davious]

~Po~, Mandatory pregnancy/forced slavery would only be if the following were true:
1. There were no such things as birth control, or their usage was only the decision of the male in the relationship, thus the woman had no control over fertilization.

2. They were not allowed to say no to sex, thus, the woman is not in control over sex.

Now, since neither of those two are in any way remotely true, how can a pregnancy be mandatory, or considered slavery? Slaves are forced into being in the position they are in, they have no say...a pregnant woman was not forced into being in the position they are in, they had options to avoid it, and chose not to. Further, since the woman ultimately had the choice to say yes or no to the sexual encounter, the argument is completely meritless.

I brought up children, because children ARE the compensation for pregnancy. You have consistently used the phrase "without compensation". What exactly is compensation, in your view? Would it be okay if she was forced to have the baby, but the father paid her to keep it? That would be compensation, wouldn't it? Isn't the fact that a single mother can get on welfare, where she wouldn't qualify without the child kind of compensation? Please, inform us what you consider "compensation".

Lauren, since when does responsible safe sex equal misogyny?

You want the basis for the Catholic church's belief? Here it is: Condoms, the pill, etc are unnatural forms, and they believe that birth control should be accomplished through natural methods, namely, the calendar method, or the practice of self control.

They believe that the use of artificial contraception cheapens the role of a woman in marriage, to just being a sexual object, because they believe while every sex act does not have to lead to procreation, when a Catholic couple do have it, understanding pregnancy might result, it bonds them together far more. They would say they take sex far more seriously than you do, because they respect everything it possibly entails. Now, I am not Catholic, and I am not claiming their beliefs on contraception as my own. I am just telling you what their perspective would be.

I am glad you mentioned Bristol Palin...but, how dare you try to claim that it is all her family's influence to become a major pro-abstinence voice, is she not entitled to her own opinions?

Abortion is like a drunk driver whose guilty conscience forces them to turn themselves in, because they hit and killed someone on the road. Yeah, they are accepting responsibility...AFTER the fact. But, a sane person would say the real responsible act would have been not driving a car while intoxicated in the first place. You are encouraging the drunk drivers to turn themselves in, I am encouraging them to call a taxi or hitch a ride with someone sober. You only encourage responsibility after a major irresponsible act has already occurred. I am encouraging it to prevent the irresponsible act.

[Lauren]

Of course, the Catholic church said that as long as you use the Pill for medical but not contraceptive reasons, that would be fine.

Really? The last I heard the Catholic church was blaming the Pill for health diseases and giving men estrogen or some such nonsense. I am on the Pill for health reasons but its great as a back up contraceptive.

I agree that having abortions is the part of responsibility but there are ways people can be not responsible with it, like having abortions as a form of contraception.

Of course. Women like that do exist sadly. My ex flatmate was one of them. Kept having scares, because she wouldn't be using condoms with multiple sexual partners. EVERY time she'd have one of these scares I'd tell her to use protection, not to mention the diseases she was opening herself up to (I lived with the girl for 1 year, she slept with 10 guys that I know of. To each their own, but to not use protection with any of them?) I told her she would fall pregnant. Guess what? And guess what she did? She had an abortion. Its part of the reason we're no longer flatmate's. I find that abhorant, and couldn't be friends with someone who used abortion as a contraceptive.

BUT does that mean we stop abortions? Because some people use it in the incorrect matter no woman should have an abortion? Because if we're going down that road, cars, alcohol, sport are the first things that should go. Because some people don't drive their cars legally, some people drink to excess and there are people who break the rules in sport.

[Daisie]

You are encouraging the drunk drivers to turn themselves in, I am encouraging them to call a taxi or hitch a ride with someone sober. You only encourage responsibility after a major irresponsible act has already occurred. I am encouraging it to prevent the irresponsible act.No one likes abortion, davious. It's far more desirable not to get pregnant in the first place, or to have a healthy fetus, than to terminate a pregnancy, and it absolutely makes sense to promote the use of birth control instead of abortion as a first resort. However, once the "irresponsible act" has been committed, it can't be uncommitted. What is gained by refusing a woman a responsible option because she could have been responsible sooner?

[Xunixeon]

I only advocate condoms first. Sex is a very deeply morally divided ground between liberals and conservatives as well as religious and none religious. I don't said, Have a abortion after you get inseminated by a man-whore. Please! I said as the safety precaution not a whoring mechanism. Yes you can abstain, but that is not the only option available since if you're not strong enough to abstain, you'll end up pregnant unless your parents choose your marriage partner for you. That is why arranged marriages existed in the first place, to prevent little accidents from popping up in the womb as the result of abstinence that was poorly practiced.

BTW, in Judaic times, abortion was also considered to be a crime as well as a sin so they give children up for adoption. Women often had abortions in secret as well with their gynecologist in other countries since it is often consider by men to be affront to their womanly nature. You know who was against abortion? Hippocrates who wrote the law that every doctor recites. Plato was pro-abortion and wrote down ways a woman can get rid of her fetus.

[Splurgy]

I only advocate condoms first. Sex is a very deeply morally divided ground between liberals and conservatives as well as religious and none religious. I don't said, Have a abortion after you get inseminated by a man-whore. Please! I said as the safety precaution not a whoring mechanism. Yes you can abstain, but that is not the only option available since if you're not strong enough to abstain, you'll end up pregnant unless your parents choose your marriage partner for you. That is why arranged marriages existed in the first place, to prevent little accidents from popping up in the womb as the result of abstinence that was poorly practiced.

BTW, in Judaic times, abortion was also considered to be a crime as well as a sin so they give children up for adoption. Women often had abortions in secret as well with their gynecologist in other countries since it is often consider by men to be affront to their womanly nature. You know who was against abortion? Hippocrates who wrote the law that every doctor recites. Plato was pro-abortion and wrote down ways a woman can get rid of her fetus.
Yeah, but just because Hippocrates thought something doesn't make it correct. People use the Hippocratic oath because they agree with the oath, and not because some ancient bloke had something to say about it.
Additionally, contraceptives aren't 100% effective. There's always a chance "one will slip through the net", and if a woman doesn't realise in time to take the morning after pill (which I suppose is a form of abortion) ... well, what can you do, eh?

[davious]

No one likes abortion, davious. It's far more desirable not to get pregnant in the first place, or to have a healthy fetus, than to terminate a pregnancy, and it absolutely makes sense to promote the use of birth control instead of abortion as a first resort. However, once the "irresponsible act" has been committed, it can't be uncommitted. What is gained by refusing a woman a responsible option because she could have been responsible sooner?

Your definition of responsible is terminating a human life, my definition of being responsible after "the irresponsible act" would be to BE responsible for the life you helped create, rather than sweep it under the rug, and pretend like it never happened.

[Xunixeon]

Yeah, but just because Hippocrates thought something doesn't make it correct. People use the Hippocratic oath because they agree with the oath, and not because some ancient bloke had something to say about it.
Additionally, contraceptives aren't 100% effective. There's always a chance "one will slip through the net", and if a woman doesn't realise in time to take the morning after pill (which I suppose is a form of abortion) ... well, what can you do, eh?

So you have a baby and abandon it? BTW, I believe also in the morning after pill. If you don't want your daughter to have a baby, get her fixed (Less than 5% risk of being pregnant there). That is why you have abortions after contraceptives. Don't you know that abstinence has flaws, too? That is why if you're against abortion, you should force your opinions on some one else.

[Xunixeon]

Your definition of responsible is terminating a human life, my definition of being responsible after "the irresponsible act" would be to BE responsible for the life you helped create, rather than sweep it under the rug, and pretend like it never happened.

That God popped in your oven? Of course, sh** happens even after you get pregnant. Then you give it up to adoption in which there is a lot of babies not being adopted due to the influx of people wanting African or Chinese babies? What happens after miscarriage if you're a pro-lifer? See, a mother never pretends what has happened even after the abortion. You see the woman who have an abortion as the one who has cheap sex and AIDs that hates kids, I see as many facets of one face that has to choose between abortion and giving birth.

I believe that being a right-winger is the gateway to the conspiracy theorist Christian, who is afraid of NWO and want everyone to convert or else.

BTW, I have yet to see a man give birth without sexual transformation. Let me know that men can have kids in their bellies and not just women.

[Splurgy]

So you have a baby and abandon it? BTW, I believe also in the morning after pill. If you don't want your daughter to have a baby, get her fixed (Less than 5% risk of being pregnant there). That is why you have abortions after contraceptives. Don't you know that abstinence has flaws, too? That is why if you're against abortion, you should force your opinions on some one else.
Um, I'm pro-choice.

[Xunixeon]

Um, I'm pro-choice.

Oh. So you think that a woman should have abortion? Good for you!

[crazy_sanity]

I believe before the third month of pregnancy abortion should be legal. Mistakes happen, yes, and at that point the baby is just a lump of cells. I personally, am extremely against abortion. I think it's a terrible, selfish thing to do. However people are allowed to make their own choices and so long as the baby isn't suffering, I have no reason to care what they do.