Home - List All Discussions

be counted

passivism was not our past

by: faithman

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
How long will we allow this intolerable evil to continue? How long do we remain passive while the basic right to life of womb children, is snuffed out by the absolute despotism of killer mom at Planned Parenthood? When will we liberate preborns from an unjust death sentance, so they may pursue happiness? We have the duty to throw off this tyrany. Either by the vote, or by the second amendment.
-------------------------

reply from: scopia1982

Faithman I agree with you 100% I am not a person that advocates violence, but I was talking to the proabort last night who I call my husband (tic) about what will finally make abortion come to an end and I hope it doesnt come to it, but I believe that it will be a civil war. And if such a things happen I will take up arms and join whatever military forces are defending the unborn. We prolifers are a threat to the proaborts, like the abolishnists were to the slaveholders before the Civil War. I consider myself an abolishnists because I want to ABOLISH abortion. Just as we once had slaveocrats, now we have abortioncrats.

reply from: faithman

Faithman I agree with you 100% I am not a person that advocates violence, but I was talking to the proabort last night who I call my husband (tic) about what will finally make abortion come to an end and I hope it doesnt come to it, but I believe that it will be a civil war. And if such a things happen I will take up arms and join whatever military forces are defending the unborn. We prolifers are a threat to the proaborts, like the abolishnists were to the slaveholders before the Civil War. I consider myself an abolishnists because I want to ABOLISH abortion. Just as we once had slaveocrats, now we have abortioncrats.
Until we are will to bring it to the degree nesisary to stop it, they will continue to kill pre-born children. We should never take lightly the use of deadly force, and the throwing off of a government for any ole little reason. But there is not a court in the land that would convict a father for killing some one who was a threat to a born child. And yet our government murdered Paul Hill for defending inocent life, and then did not allow him the attorney of his choice, nor allowed him to put on a justifiable homocide case, even though he was on trial for his life. We keep allowing our cause to be made ineffectual by passivist with in the ranks. Until we are willing to truely deffend pre-born life, they little ones will continue to die. We need to quit calling abortion murder, if we are not willing to take the steps to treat it as such.

reply from: scopia1982

Faithman I agree with you 100% I am not a person that advocates violence, but I was talking to the proabort last night who I call my husband (tic) about what will finally make abortion come to an end and I hope it doesnt come to it, but I believe that it will be a civil war. And if such a things happen I will take up arms and join whatever military forces are defending the unborn. We prolifers are a threat to the proaborts, like the abolishnists were to the slaveholders before the Civil War. I consider myself an abolishnists because I want to ABOLISH abortion. Just as we once had slaveocrats, now we have abortioncrats.
Until we are will to bring it to the degree nesisary to stop it, they will continue to kill pre-born children. We should never take lightly the use of deadly force, and the throwing off of a government for any ole little reason. But there is not a court in the land that would convict a father for killing some one who was a threat to a born child. And yet our government murdered Paul Hill for defending inocent life, and then did not allow him the attorney of his choice, nor allowed him to put on a justifiable homocide case, even though he was on trial for his life. We keep allowing our cause to be made ineffectual by passivist with in the ranks. Until we are willing to truely deffend pre-born life, they little ones will continue to die. We need to quit calling abortion murder, if we are not willing to take the steps to treat it as such.
ICAM, by murdering Paul Hill, they have only made him a martyr.

reply from: Tam

I agree that Paul should have been allowed to pursue a justifiable homicide defense. I choose nonviolent activism, but I do understand where he was coming from and I believe it was unjust of the court to refuse to allow him to mount a defense that made sense in light of his actual motivations.

reply from: faithman

I prefer nonviolence as well. That is why I advocate the use of the live baby pictures. It was the malachi poster that motivated Paul to act. It is not right for people to expose others to material that insights them to take action, then condemn them when they do.Every time I see what abortion does to a child, and having raised my right hand and swore to protect the constitution even if it meant my death, and then told that same constitution ordaind such horror, I dred the day I took the oath of service. It has become a curse to me. I believe we should try every peaceful avenue to try and stop the killing. But it has been my observation that the only way to stop this kind of evil is severe lead poisoning.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I advocate nonviolence because, although violence against abortion is ethical, its not strategically sound. It wouldn't work except as war. For example, Nat Turner and John Brown failed, violence didn't end slavery until people were truly divided and heated.

reply from: faithman

It did help to push it in that direction though. The prob with Bro Hill, is that we had to many "leaders" in the "movement" condemn him, and took this false passivist route. If Paul Hill was wrong, then we need to quit calling Abortion murder. If abortion is murder then the people need to rise up and throw the government off of the pre-born. we simply can't have it both ways.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I remember in a high school psych class this girl asking why it was okay to bomb a concentration camp and not an abortion clinic and the pro-choice teacher doing the "Oh, um, we'll talk about that later..." dance

reply from: 1003

concentration camps were places where persons who globally were protected lost all human rights. abortion clinics are places where humans who globally have no human rights have what would be their rights, if they were people, infringed upon.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Actually, neither the concentration camp victims nor babies were/are globally protected. Jews had rights in the U.S. but not in Germany, babies have rights in Mexico but not in the U.S. But whether or not someone has legal rights doesn't effect the ethicality of killing them. It's wrong to lynch blacks whether during of after slavery, for example.

reply from: faithman

I have some freinds who were from holland, and went thru ww2. They chimed in that ole party line about Hill. I said then the under ground that fought the Nazy in Holland were not heros but murders. Talk about POed!! But it is exactly the samething, either womb children are just as much a person as the jews being marched into the ovens, or they are not. Either Paul hill is the same cut of cloth as any freedom fighter, or no one has the right to fight for the inocent, and to be free. If Hill was wrong then this contry is ilegit, as we popped a whole lot of red coats over a penny tax on a tea bag. But I guess a tea bag is worth more than the life of a womb child?

reply from: yoda

You're right. I've seen probabykilling advocates pointedly ask an antibabykilling advocate a question like this: "If you really believe that babies are being killed in abortion clinics, why aren't you out there shutting them down any way you can?" Some of them even add "If I believed that, I know that I would use any means necessary to stop them". Now, how do you counter that? I don't know any logic that refutes that. All I can fall back on is my conviction that the way Paul Hill did it is not the quickest way to end abortion. But I can't, and won't say that he was an evil man, or had evil motives.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Just say, "Because if I did it wouldn't be the legal end of abortion, and I'd be trapped in jail where I could no longer take an active role in the fight. It would push the American public, who have been conditioned to consider the unborn inhuman, to the abortion side and make people more resentful of prolife change. Just as the actions of Nat Turner were well-meaning yet made things immediately worse for slaves, violent action would hurt the pro-life cause."

reply from: yoda

Yes, that's the strategic viewpoint, and the tactical one as well.
Remember the song about John Brown? Not a very flattering song, even though he was a radical abolitionist.

reply from: nsanford

Tell me, pro-lifer, how this is possible when there are as many pro-life organizations as there are?

reply from: faithman

Very valid point sis. Let us hope and pray that a peaceful end will come. Let us also pray that we have the resolve to end it one way or the other. But we are running out of peaceful as the babies continue to die. If you were strapped to a table, and fixin to be chopped up, would you want me to organize, throw a banquete, and vote in some one who would change the court in 30 years? Or would you want someone to stick a 12 gage up the rectum of the one about to do the chopping and give them a double ought enama?

reply from: galen

Conf. said,
When you go out for vengance dig two graves, one for the person you are after and one ofr yourself.
Mary

reply from: faithman

There is a difference between vengance and justice.

reply from: Tam

Ok, that is just laughable.

reply from: Mugen

I would never use violence to advocate the pro-life position. I think that is an affront to the basis of the pro-life view. But moreso because I think it goes against Christian teachings and I am a Christian. Peaceful means send a much more powerful message. Violence is what pro-choicers latch onto and use against the pro-life movement.

reply from: faithman

It is your view that keeps abortion legal. The christian view on lethal force has always been justified in the defence of inocent life. War is justified when it is in defence of an agressor. You agree then, with planned parenthood, that womb children do not deserve protection from murder. You agree, with your statement, that the womb child is a second class citizen and has no rights. Your statement would also take away a fathers right to deffend the life of his children. You are just plain stupid.

reply from: galen

Violence, this is such a Old testament view of things.
What ever happened to the love thy neighbor part of things?
maybe FM you are just too stupid to understand the one who has been the focus of your "ministry"...
When did Christ EVER kill another human being? His was a moral message that contradicted everything that the jews believed would happen when the Messiah came. There was NO killing of enemies, no bloodshed on his part. that was one reason many people rejected Him as thier Savior. if you really wanted to follow his example you would find a way of dying for the cause whithout taking anyone elses life.
BTW there is little diffrence in vengence and justice when it calls for killing another human being. No one EVER has the right to take anyone else's life. Period.
I do not deny your right to your opinions. but the least you could do is keep them in line with the message you proport. otherwise you end up looking foolosh.
Mary
In Matthew 7:1, it says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Let's be careful about that, for verse 2 says, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." That should make us a little more thoughtful about the way we "
here is another:
In Matthew 7:1, it says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Let's be careful about that, for verse 2 says, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." That should make us a little more thoughtful about the way we "
Hebrews.12:15.
"Beware lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled."
God will take care of that person in due time, if you leave the whole matter in His hands.
"To Me belongeth vengeance, and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time."-Deut.32:35. "
"But if ye forgive not men their t respasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."-Mat.6:15.
PS I forgive you your anger... And i do not stand in judgement of your opinions, however i do wish you would have a consistant message to give.
MAry

reply from: Shiprahagain

Galen, what I think he's saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that no one would question killing someone who is about to kill an eight year old, yet they would be condemened for killing a pre-born child. Perhaps Faithman is saying that he feels we should either condemn all violence or condone it.

reply from: galen

hmmm I 'll think about that, however i came across to me diffrently.
Mary
i still think he needs to stick to the message that he proports.

reply from: galen

Nope
I thought about it,
and it was the defense of Mr Hill that gets me. that whole mess was wrong, We gave trials to Nazi's but we want to let him(hill) be judge and jury and executioner and then some. What he( hill) did was no better than what the abortionist did. There for i do not condone it. EVER. I find no justifiable reason for any violence except to save yourself or your kin. Mr hill had none of this. Besides if this world were not so pitted on each other and so sure that might is right there would not be a cause for such actions.
Mary
a person who saw enough violence in her life to refuse to perpetuate any more of it.

reply from: holopaw

Faithman I agree with you 100% I am not a person that advocates violence, but I was talking to the proabort last night who I call my husband (tic) about what will finally make abortion come to an end and I hope it doesnt come to it, but I believe that it will be a civil war. And if such a things happen I will take up arms and join whatever military forces are defending the unborn. We prolifers are a threat to the proaborts, like the abolishnists were to the slaveholders before the Civil War. I consider myself an abolishnists because I want to ABOLISH abortion. Just as we once had slaveocrats, now we have abortioncrats.
Until we are will to bring it to the degree nesisary to stop it, they will continue to kill pre-born children. We should never take lightly the use of deadly force, and the throwing off of a government for any ole little reason. But there is not a court in the land that would convict a father for killing some one who was a threat to a born child. And yet our government murdered Paul Hill for defending inocent life, and then did not allow him the attorney of his choice, nor allowed him to put on a justifiable homocide case, even though he was on trial for his life. We keep allowing our cause to be made ineffectual by passivist with in the ranks. Until we are willing to truely deffend pre-born life, they little ones will continue to die. We need to quit calling abortion murder, if we are not willing to take the steps to treat it as such.
ICAM, by murdering Paul Hill, they have only made him a martyr.
There are hundreds of children on this planet that wouldn't be here if Abortionist John Britten was still performing abortions. IMO, that's a good thing.

reply from: holopaw

Sometimes you have to look at the small picture. Lots of children, maybe thousands of children were spared when Abortionist John Britton was murdered.

reply from: holopaw

You're right. I've seen probabykilling advocates pointedly ask an antibabykilling advocate a question like this: "If you really believe that babies are being killed in abortion clinics, why aren't you out there shutting them down any way you can?" Some of them even add "If I believed that, I know that I would use any means necessary to stop them". Now, how do you counter that? I don't know any logic that refutes that. All I can fall back on is my conviction that the way Paul Hill did it is not the quickest way to end abortion. But I can't, and won't say that he was an evil man, or had evil motives.
Strangely enough, I came to the same conclusion after reading a Pro-Choice essay. I am willing to die for the Baby Rights Movement, but killing is not in me. I don't believe John Britten's passing was a bad thing.

reply from: holopaw

Tell me, pro-lifer, how this is possible when there are as many pro-life organizations as there are?
There are thousands of churches, we still have atheists. I bet the Pro-Abortionists have more money. Planned Death gets millions from killing the preborn.

reply from: faithman

so the babies were not inocent humans fixin to get murdered by the abortionist? So if you are being raped and killed, you would want.... A]someone to say you ain't my kin, so I won't help you...or B] Someone who killed your attacker and saved your life, even though they were strangers? Your post shows you are pro-choice, because you have no consideration for the pre-born child. They deserve nothing as you sit on your high and mighty horse, claiming some moral victory written in womb child blood. It is this very attitude that keeps it legal.

reply from: holopaw

What is my life's worth compared to thousands of children? I'm not a violent man, but if my death would mean thousands would live, Just tell my mom and sister, I love them and try to make it quick.

reply from: holopaw

How about love thy neighbor for the unborn babies? If a guy walks into a school and goes columbine/post office, do you believe the police should not use lethal force to stop him? Police shoot to kill, they do not aim to maim.

reply from: holopaw

If it weren't for the violence of the civil war, we'd still have slavery. Don't the Pro-Choicers practice violence? Abortionists kill 4,000 people a day. If there was a contagious disease that killed 2,000 people a day, there'd be hysteria. We have changed our entire society because of 9/11 and maybe 2,000 died. The only difference between the holocaust and abortion u.s.a. is abortion is done in pretty lil buildings with pleasant sounding names and the victims are tossed in the garbage/incinerator unseen instead of piled on top of each other in the open.

reply from: holopaw

So you don't believe policeman have the right to protect anyone using lethal force except themselves and their family?

reply from: yoda

This is a very emotional subject, and one that is difficult for antibabykilling advocates. I don't claim to have the answer for everyone, but I think we must be careful in how we explain our differences with the Paul Hill's of the world.
I don't think you really meant what you said. Surely you don't think that it's wrong to save an innocent stranger, just because he/she isn't kin to you?
Many of us are troubled by what he did, but let's seek to define our objections a little better, okay?

reply from: faithman

so the babies were not inocent humans fixin to get murdered by the abortionist? So if you are being raped and killed, you would want.... A]someone to say you ain't my kin, so I won't help you...or B] Someone who killed your attacker and saved your life, even though they were strangers? Your post shows you are pro-choice, because you have no consideration for the pre-born child. They deserve nothing as you sit on your high and mighty horse, claiming some moral victory written in womb child blood. It is this very attitude that keeps it legal.

reply from: Tam

I am a pacifist first and a prolifer second. In fact, I would go so far as to say I am a prolifer because I am a pacifist. Many of my other views stem from my basic opposition to violence as a "problem-solving" tool.

reply from: Mugen

It is your view that keeps abortion legal. The christian view on lethal force has always been justified in the defence of inocent life. War is justified when it is in defence of an agressor. You agree then, with planned parenthood, that womb children do not deserve protection from murder. You agree, with your statement, that the womb child is a second class citizen and has no rights. Your statement would also take away a fathers right to deffend the life of his children. You are just plain stupid.
Ease up pal. I restrain my tongue from insulting others, even in anger. I would appreciate if I was afforded the same courtesy. I am not necessarily convinced that killing people because they kill is what God wants us to do. But let's say we both agreed. There is an even more obvious reason to avoid violence. It simply won't work. We would be far outnumbered, and the pro-life view would lose all credibility. What then? Historically peaceful means have always gained more than the use of violence. As a good Christian, you would do well to heed the words of Christ my friend.

reply from: Mugen

If it weren't for the violence of the civil war, we'd still have slavery. Don't the Pro-Choicers practice violence? Abortionists kill 4,000 people a day. If there was a contagious disease that killed 2,000 people a day, there'd be hysteria. We have changed our entire society because of 9/11 and maybe 2,000 died. The only difference between the holocaust and abortion u.s.a. is abortion is done in pretty lil buildings with pleasant sounding names and the victims are tossed in the garbage/incinerator unseen instead of piled on top of each other in the open.
I don't entirely disagree with you. But the fact is, violence is not the answer to this particular problem. It only strengthens the opposition and takes away any credibility the pro-life movement has. Patience is required if we wish to save lives in the long term. Look at the laws being passed now in South Dakota and other states. Abortion is coming to the forefront.

reply from: faithman

It is your view that keeps abortion legal. The christian view on lethal force has always been justified in the defence of inocent life. War is justified when it is in defence of an agressor. You agree then, with planned parenthood, that womb children do not deserve protection from murder. You agree, with your statement, that the womb child is a second class citizen and has no rights. Your statement would also take away a fathers right to deffend the life of his children. You are just plain stupid.
Ease up pal. I restrain my tongue from insulting others, even in anger. I would appreciate if I was afforded the same courtesy. I am not necessarily convinced that killing people because they kill is what God wants us to do. But let's say we both agreed. There is an even more obvious reason to avoid violence. It simply won't work. We would be far outnumbered, and the pro-life view would lose all credibility. What then? Historically peaceful means have always gained more than the use of violence. As a good Christian, you would do well to heed the words of Christ my friend.
SSSSOOO you agree that womb children are second class citizens and do not deserve full protection? Your "credibility" be hanged. It is a fact that many abortionist have quit, and many new doctors refuse to do the deed in fear there may be a Hill or a kopp out there some where. SO all the resistance folk who faught the nazi in their home land were wrong? The American colonist were wrong? The settlers were wrong in protecting them selves from outlaws and indians? The bystander is wrong in using deadly force to stop an assault, rape, or murder. We afford these rights to the born child. But because you want to pretend to be morally superior, you are willing to let 4000 a day die for how many more years?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Uh, Faithman, the settlers weren't protecting themselves from Indians, the Indians were protecting themselves from trespassers.

reply from: galen

holo: i do not think that our police force needs to carry weapons(deadly), they get along quite well without them in many situations in England. i just watched a newscast this week where one of our city's finest mistakenly shot an innocent woman in the neck. i think that makes 3 this year for our area of the country.
BTW faithman... i was raped and nearly killed and there was no one that stopped to help me... watch what you speak of. The fact that you consider me pro-choice, is of a telling nature.
No Yoda i do not feel that saving an innocent stranger is wrong, but i do think that to resort to violence the way mr hill did is wrong. all he did was stoop to the level of the person he murdered.
I have been a victim of violence, in my experience violence begats violence. i would not use this as a tool if i had ANY other choice. i have found that i DO have that choice.
I have talked down 2 abusers in our shelter that have been hell bent on killing thier wives and children ( born and unborn).
I do not carry a wepon except for my brain, and it has served me quite well.
We will never know how many lives would have been changed should the abortionist had a change of heart, or had mr hill gone on to influence people in a positive way. We have no right to inflict our "justice" on the world and irrivocably change the course of what could or should be.
When we stoop to the level of the abortionist then we destroy and kill just as they would. With no regard to the lives they take or the lives they affect. You say what about those babies? Well what about the possibility to change? We have seen more abortionists in the last 5 years turn around in thier belife system. how about the children they bring into the world now?
the only one who gets to play God in this world is God. i for one will not be on the side of stooping down to cover myself in evil.
Mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

Galen, God bless you. The fact that with all of that pain you help others as a nurse makes you absolutely incredible. If life were fair, everyone would know about unsung heroes like you. But would you really have condemned someone who used a gun to help you?

reply from: holopaw

In America, if you criminalize having guns then only criminals will have guns. Thankfully, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, so I'm not going to argue about gun control.
Regardless, if an abortionist has a change of heart, he/she has still murdered dozens (vastly underestimated here) of children. I look at it this way, if this same abortionist went into a school every day and shot dozens of children I would not shed a tear if anyone took him out. Reformed Abortionists bring children into the world. I'm not impressed. They can never bring the children they murdered back. An abortionist that kills for 10 years will not come close to presiding over as many births.
If a serial killer says "I'm sorry," he still pays the price. An abortionist is no different in my eyes.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Not to mention that counties that own more guns have lower murder rates (also it was illegal during colonization to sell guns to Indians because Heaven forbid oppressed ppl have the opportunity to fight back).

reply from: faithman

Well, there went the neiborhood. Mean ole white boyz.

reply from: holopaw

Well, there went the neiborhood. Mean ole white boyz.
Nothing she has said is incorrect. The Native Americans were here first. Europeans conquered them and forced them to live on reservations. Another of mankind's less stellar moments.

reply from: Tam

Well, there went the neiborhood. Mean ole white boyz.
Nothing she has said is incorrect. The Native Americans were here first. Europeans conquered them and forced them to live on reservations. Another of mankind's less stellar moments.
Yes, white people do have a history of oppressing people of other colors. It's embarrassing and sad. At least things are for the most part moving in the right direction--toward peace and kindness and away from usury and victimization.

reply from: galen

would i condem someone who used a gun to save my life? Hmmm i would definately look at them diffrently, would i be grateful? yes..but i would mourne that aother soul was gone from this earth, and did not have a chance to repent thier ways.
Still i do not think violence is an answer, it is too much of a quick fix.. kinda like abortion.
mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

Galen, I don't agree, but I think anyone who's been through what you've been through and still cherish all life so much is amazing.

reply from: galen

well thankyou, i guess we agree to disagree? friends?
mary

reply from: Mugen

faithman
I'm not willing to throw future children in the fire, just to prove to myself my view is legitimate. You must be sensible about this. Yes, I suppose violence has deterred some abortion doctors. But how many pro-choicers has it created? Christ does not tell us to take up the sword, but to take up the heart. Pro-life is in favor of life. How can we lose with that argument? If we go your way, how can we convince people when we kill to prove that life should be valued? It is contradictory. The most significant changes in history have been made by those who chose non-violent means. They are the ones who infuriate the enemy. Pro-choicers love violent pro-lifers. It gives them fuel to use against the movement. That should tell you something.
I'm not suggesting that force isn't justified at times. But it should be used intelligently. If we were to use violence we might save a life or two before the pro-life viewpoint was pushed out of the mainstream and silenced forever. Abortion is a long term problem and needs a permanent solution.
I sympathize with your view. Righteous anger is appropriate when faced with abortion. But it is how you use that anger that is important. Christ was angry when he found sacred ground being used for common greed. But did he start blowing up money lenders? No. He convinced them to join him. That is far more powerful.

reply from: holopaw

I'm not willing to throw future children in the fire, just to prove to myself my view is legitimate. You must be sensible about this. Yes, I suppose violence has deterred some abortion doctors. But how many pro-choicers has it created? Christ does not tell us to take up the sword, but to take up the heart. Pro-life is in favor of life. How can we lose with that argument? If we go your way, how can we convince people when we kill to prove that life should be valued? It is contradictory. The most significant changes in history have been made by those who chose non-violent means. They are the ones who infuriate the enemy. Pro-choicers love violent pro-lifers. It gives them fuel to use against the movement. That should tell you something.
I'm not suggesting that force isn't justified at times. But it should be used intelligently. If we were to use violence we might save a life or two before the pro-life viewpoint was pushed out of the mainstream and silenced forever. Abortion is a long term problem and needs a permanent solution.
I sympathize with your view. Righteous anger is appropriate when faced with abortion. But it is how you use that anger that is important. Christ was angry when he found sacred ground being used for common greed. But did he start blowing up money lenders? No. He convinced them to join him. That is far more powerful.
I always said this isn't a number's game or a popularity contest. If I were the only person on the planet to think abortion was wrong, it wouldn't lessen my opinion on its evilness in the slightest. I love PL'ers, but my primary goal isn't to convert PC'ers to my side. I want to stop women from having abortions.
You believe that an abortionist's death saves a life or two. That is a vast underestimation. These "humans" kill hundreds of babies in a career. If it weren't for the Civil War, we'd probably have had slavery in the south another hundred years. At worse we'd continue to have free states and slave states. Kind of like how things will be once we overturn Roe V. Wade.
I'll return to an earlier argument. If a man walked into an elementary school everyday and murdered 10 children, would it be justified if a school teacher eventually tired of it and killed him? If we believe the embryos, zygotes, and fetuses are children, the abortionist is no different than the man who goes columbine in a school. The 4,000 children that are killed in the womb every day are not coming back. And that's just America
Mugen you are familiar with ProChoice talk. You honestly believe most of those people will change their mind. Planned Parenthood will always be about killing babie$, there is too much money in it and they are pawns of the Anti-Christ.
Some issues allow for time to debate and debate. Unfortunately, while we play passivist, children are dying. If every abortionist in the world had an hour to live, I wouldn't shed a tear. I would pray that in that hour they came to know the Lord. After that adios.
I respect your opinion. You are amazing on the Pro-Choice board.
BTW, MLK Jr. was embraced because the white structure preferred him as the face/leader of the Civil Rights Movement rather than the angry Malcolm X. He was a passivist and still ended up with a bullet in him.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Of course, I"m honored.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The thing is, when we convert pro-choicers, we convert ppl who might become abortionists or commit abortion. Also, if you kill a murderer of kids, there won't be any backlash, if you kill an abortionist, you've saved the thousands of kids he would have killed, but you may get thousands of more kids by making it harder for all abortion to become illegal.

reply from: holopaw

The thing is, when we convert pro-choicers, we convert ppl who might become abortionists or commit abortion. Also, if you kill a murderer of kids, there won't be any backlash, if you kill an abortionist, you've saved the thousands of kids he would have killed, but you may get thousands of more kids by making it harder for all abortion to become illegal.
I may not have made this clear. I'm not scared of backlash. Conversion is secondary to me. Are PC'ers concerned about converting us? No, they just want to keep abortion available and on demand.
We've had 30 years of abortion on demand and I'm sick of it. Millions of children have died. The PC'ers know that. Apparently, they don't care. Slaves rebelled, that may have turmed white America against them, they did what they thought they had to do to achieve freedom. There is a reason America is no longer a colony, we fought the British and killed them. In hindsight, those who wage war against abortionsts have more justification. They are preventing the deaths of innocents.

reply from: Mugen

Holopaw
Jesus was a pacifist too, and he ended up on the cross. Malcolm X turned pacifist and was shot by his own people. I think it says something about the power of peaceful methods that this happens so often. If your enemy is trying to kill you, you know you are doing something right. I will grant you that I was wrong to say it was only one or two lives. But even a hundred lives pales in comparison to the number that would be saved if abortion was limited by legal means. That will never happen as long as pro-lifers are violent.
The people on prochoicetalk do not represent the majority of Americans who are pro-choice. Most are pro-choice in name only or because of propaganda. Propaganda, for instance, that says pro-lifers are violent murderers. If pro-choicers want to put that image out there it has to be bad. We would do a disservice to lend credence to their lies.
Like I told faithman, I understand why you feel that way. It's very hard not to take up the sword in the face of such a hopeless situation. But that's exactly what pro-choicers would prefer. In the face of so much violence, the smartest thing we can do is put ourselves out there as the opposite alternative. Violence is not a long term solution. If for no other reason, the fact that it simply won't work, should be enough of a deterrant. How many can be stopped before the tide turns against the pro-life view completely? Not many, I'll wager.
We don't need to win the hearts of every American, just the majority.

reply from: holopaw

Dude, I respect your opinion and I'm not going to argue with you. You are a Godly man and I'm glad to have you as a Brother-In-Christ. Thanks for showing me the light even if I don't embrace it.

reply from: RobertFerguson

JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS NO WIMP!


Somehow in these last days of the twentieth century, Christians have gotten the mistaken idea that Jesus was some kind of non-confrontational, ethereal wimp, who never used strong words toward anyone. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jesus was continually confronting the Jewish leaders who perverted the Law of God for their own purposes. He confronted the politicians, the lawyers, the intellectual scribes, and the pious Pharisees.
You will find some of the hard sayings of Jesus, who warned us that he came not to bring peace, but a sword.
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. and he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. (Luke 13:31-32)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalmen, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate:.....(Luke 13:34-35)

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, then that he should offend one of these little lones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass agains thee, Rebuke him: and if he repent forgive him. (Luke 17:1-3)

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham. ye do the deeds of your father. then said they to him. We be not born of fornication; we have on Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. when he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:39-44)
THE LEGACY OF WIMPY CHRISTIANITY

Because of this mistaken idea, Christians shy away from situations where they are duty bound to take a stand for righteousness. As a result, Abortion, Homosexuality, False Religions have established a beach head in what was once a land professing
Christian standards. False Teachers in church pulpets have fostered the idea of a Laissez-faire Christianity.
Christians think that as long as they do not PERSONALLY engage in these abominations that all is well.

OCCUPY TILL I COME


A certain nobelman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (Luke 19:12-13)


Occupy is also military term indicating governmental control over a subject land.
For example the multinational occupation of Germany after WW II. Our Lord has gone to be with the Father and we await his return to rule and reign. We were commanded to "teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he commanded us." That is a far cry from the typical Christian response of "I would never personally..........therefore I see no reason to get involved in the battle".

And from the days of John the Baptist until now , the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt.11:12)
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own housedhold. (Matt 10:34-35)

reply from: galen

quote from RF:
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. and he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. (Luke 13:31-32)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalmen, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate:.....(Luke 13:34-35)
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, then that he should offend one of these little lones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass agains thee, Rebuke him: and if he repent forgive him. (Luke 17:1-3)
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham. ye do the deeds of your father. then said they to him. We be not born of fornication; we have on Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. when he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:39-44)
I see nothing in the passages above quoted by RF that exhort ANYONE to use violence to furthur Christs's cause. What i do see is Christ saying that HE will be persecuted. I went back into the text metioned and as far as i can tell Christ never lifted a hand to ward off the offenders and even rebuked Peter for taking up a sword against a servant in the garden while he was being led away. Why do you twist the bibke and use verse that does not even support what you are saying.
In your first quote Herod will go after the Christ and the Pharasees are warning him about it. Jesus states that He works miricales and will raise from the dead in 3 days time.
In your second quote, is a lament that the jews are time and again offered a prophet from God to teach them how to be better people and they reject them time and again. It is a lament that they do not get the message.
the 3rd quote is a warning to the apostles that they will not be able to stop the coming trials that Christ must undertake. it is also a lament for those who must participate in them for they will be cursed( ?) for having to follow God's plan. ( so much for free will)
Your 4th quote Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and admonishing them for acting above themselves and having no humility. He is telling them they should be able to see what is in front of them ( the messiah) but they are so full of themselves that they can not do so.
A certain nobelman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (Luke 19:12-13)
this is a quote taken from the parable of the sums of money and is a quote taken out of context the full verse is rquired to see the moral those that have more will be given more but those that have little will loose what they have. in this instance the word occupy is not used as a military term but one for investment here is the entire passage
has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
Parable of Money Usage
11While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because (H)He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that (I)the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
12So He said, "(J)A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
13"And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten [a]minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until I come back.'
14"But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
15"When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
16"The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
17"And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been (K)faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
18"The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19"And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
20"Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
21for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
22"He said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?
23'Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
25"And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
26"(L)I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
27"But (M)these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and (N)slay them in my presence."

And from the days of John the Baptist until now , the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt.11:12)
the quote above referrs to OTHERS commiting violent attacks ... not that we should go out and do so . the entire passage is christ speaking of john the Baptiser who lived in humility in the desert under the presence of God.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own housedhold. (Matt 10:34-35)
this quote is a warning from Christ that His message will tear apart ties from all parts of society. It will be so new and powerfull that it will evoke anger in some who will try to do violent acts in His name. it is a warning not an order to go out and kill each other.
So RF why do you take these quotes and twist them to get others to think that the BIBle is saying something that it is not... why do you insist on violence being the answer to this problem?
Mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

Not a single twist in there Mary.
You claim God in His wisdom has these verses in His Living Word not to teach us as to His character and those of His followers, nor to act on them, yet are you not a pagan woman who has not the Spirit to guide her in the understanding of scriptute?
I also do not believe for a second that police officers or their departments disarm themsewlves in order to enter your women's shelter. No dept would allow police to remove their weapons. Most even require their officers to wear their sidearms off duty.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Mugen, I completely agree with you. Killing abortionists is justifiable, yes, but not the BEST way to save children. When pro-lifers are violent, we just turn the general public away from us. We need them to be on our side, rather than against us, if we ever want to make abortion illegal.
But wouldn't you rather abortionists convert and go to Heaven rather that die and go to Hell? I don't know about you, but I'd like to save as many souls as possible. If abortionists don't convert, leave it to God to punish them- it's His job. It's also His job to make sure they die at the right time. Not ours.

reply from: galen

RF..
where in the world do you come up with the idea that i am a pagan???
i am Catholic.
And yes they do not enter our building armed... it is a church building and contains a chapel.
Mary

reply from: galen

i think i showed you very well that you have taken the quotes used to back up your beliefs out of context. Why not use the whole passage instead of using only a single line ...it seems that you wish to convey the meaning YOu choose and not the one the writer intended.
mary

reply from: galen

quote from RF:
A certain nobelman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (Luke 19:12-13)
Occupy is also military term indicating governmental control over a subject land.
For example the multinational occupation of Germany after WW II. Our Lord has gone to be with the Father and we await his return to rule and reign. We were commanded to "teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he commanded us." That is a far cry from the typical Christian response of "I would never personally..........therefore I see no reason to get involved in the battle".
the quote you use is in the Elizabethan form of English... written in the time of King James who took the English throne after Elizabeth the I ... in these terms the meaning of the word occupy, is used to convey work.. to make yourself busy, which is what the master is extohling his slaves to do while he is away. not to take up arms and occupy the land in his stead. they are also being told to safeguard and expand the monies given to them.
Mary

reply from: galen

just a bit of history on the version RF uses ...
History of the King James Version of the Bible
The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, King James Version also known as KJV. In 1604 James VI, King of Scotland from his youth, became King James I of England, the first ruler of Brittain and Ireland. Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honor of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. King James appointed 54 learned scholars in the making of this new translation from the original Greek and Hebrew into English. For the Old Testament they used the ben Asher text, and for the New Testament they used the Greek text of Erasmus and a Greek and Latin text of the 6th Century found by Theodore Beza. They used Chapters (developed by Archbishop Stephen Langton in 1551) and Verses (the verse divisions of Robert Estienne). It was completed and published in 1611 and became known as the "Authorized Version" because the making of it was authorized by King James. It became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the English church. There have been many revisions of the King James Bible ie. 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. Some of them include marginal notes containing the chronology of Biblical events laid out by Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), which dates Adam and Eve at 4004 B.C. The 1762 revision is what we now presently know as the King James Version.

reply from: galen

another interesting pice of info about king james I that RF apparently overlooked in his choice of religious text... English Bible History
King James I.. I find it interesting that someone with an avvowed dislike of homosexual relationships could rely on a translation attributed to one of Englan's only bi sexual rulers. in RF's world this man is burning in hell...but he translated a bible that is used by billions.hmmmmmmmmm
With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. His name has become synonymous with the famous printing of the Bible that bears his name, the "King James Bible" of 1611 AD. He was one of the most intelligent Kings to reign over England, but his personal life made him the most controversial since his relative, King Henry VIII.
James VI of Scotland and James I of England
James VI of Scotland (June 19, 1566 - March 27, 1625, reigned July 24, 1567 - March 27, 1625) became James I of England and Ireland (reigned March 24, 1603-March 27, 1625) and was the first king of both England and Scotland. He also held the title of King of France, as had all his predecessors in the English throne since October 21, 1422, although by his time the title didn't come with an active claim of this throne. James succeeded Elizabeth I as the closest living relative of the unmarried childless English monarch, through his descent from one of Henry VIII's sisters.
King James Crowned at the Age of One
Prince James became King of Scotland on July 24, 1567, at the age of 13 months, after his mother Mary, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate. Mary fled to England, where she was imprisoned for the next 19 years. His father, Lord Darnley, had died in mysterious circumstances shortly after James was born. James was formally crowned at the Church of the Holy Rood, Stirling on July 29, 1567. In accordance to the religious atmosphere of the time, he was brought up as a Scottish Presbyterian, though his mother had been a Roman Catholic.
King James - from Scotland to England
James inherited the throne of England after the death of his mother's cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. James was never a very popular monarch among the people of England. He laid much of the groundwork that would eventually lead to the beheading of his heir Charles I during the English Civil War, but because of his political skills, his rule was relatively stable. James married Anne of Denmark by proxy on August 20, 1589, and in person on November 23, 1589 and again in person in January 21, 1590. They had eight children, of whom only three lived beyond infancy: Henry, Prince of Wales- (February 19, 1594 - November 6, 1612), Elizabeth Stuart - (August 19, 1596 - February 13, 1662), and King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland - (November 19, 1600 - January 30, 1649).
James dissolved the English Parliament on February 8, 1622, following a dispute involving parliamentary criticisms of a marriage proposed by James, of his son Charles to Princess Maria Anna of Spain. King James was quoted as saying, "Monarchy is the greatest thing on earth. Kings are rightly called gods since just like God they have power of life and death over all their subjects in all things. They are accountable to God only ... so it is a crime for anyone to argue about what a king can do."
King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English or Scottish throne. He is primarily remembered for authorizing the production of the King James Version of the Bible, the highly popular English translation from Greek and Hebrew, which remains the most printed book in the history of the world, with over one billion copies in print. King James had nothing to do with the translating the Bible, he merely authorized it and provided financing for its production. Beyond that, however, James wrote several books himself.
'Queen James'
One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland.
In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship was a sexual one. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that "Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!" If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his "wife" and called himself Villiers' "husband"! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply from: JohnGlenn

Great. Let's talk about this some more then.
We have seen where a good sister in Christ shot an abortionist once in both arms, only to have him at his work the day and has been killing babies for years since. There is no question that had she killed him, he would never have killed again. That certainly sounds BETTER than more babies being killed to me. Since a dead abortionist can not ever kill babies again- what can be better than that?
Once those 32 mothers were inside the abortuary where Paul Hill stopped their deaths- what else could an antiabortionist do to stop this butcher from killing them?
Since the abortuary was filled with humans, the timing for a bomb had passed, I have seen where some had thought an illegal bomb scare have do the trick, only to have the baby killers reopen and kill moments later.
Since dead abortionist can not ever kill babies again- what can be better than that?

reply from: faithman

Check out the site in signature

reply from: LetFreedomRing

The babies may have been saved for that day. But say someone killed George Tiller. Well, the abortions would have been delayed for a few days, maybe even weeks. But all she has to do is travel a few hours to Kansas City, where there are a couple of abortion clinics.
Making abortion illegal. And in order for that to happen, we need America on our side. Since most Americans think killing abortionists is wrong, we can never make abortion illegal by turning the general public away repeatedly by killing/harming abortionists.

reply from: faithman

Check out the site in signature

reply from: JohnGlenn

The KC abortion chamber does not do LATE TERM abortions like George Tiller.
The same licensed physicians were the ones who did abortions before 1973and there will still be abortionists that do abortions when it is illegal.
How are dead illegal babies at the hands of live baby killers better better than dead baby kilers that are unable to kill?
We know from experience that illegal abortions will continue. So there has to be a plan beyond one that is a proven failure.
I note that you were not willing to address this:
Once those 32 mothers were inside the abortuary where Paul Hill stopped their deaths- what else could an antiabortionist do to stop this butcher from killing them?

reply from: galen

probably nothing... i know one of the mothers that was schedualed for that day... she subsequently went to another Fl city and had the procedure there the next day. ( used w/ permission)
blowing up people will not stop it, nor will shooting them etc. if a woman does not want to be pregnant in a very bad way, then she will do whatever she can to rid herself of the fetus, even unto her own death.
if she is being coerced or is just scared of her circumstances she can be talked out of it. but shooting the abortionist will do nothing but bring you down to thier level. And if you care about such things, put your own soul in jepardy.
mary

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Because if abortion were illegal, most women wouldn't get them. And if abortionists are caught after abortion is made illegal, they'll get punished. Laws DO matter.
When abortion is made illegal, and if you are about to witness a live abortion, by all means, shoot the abortionist. But we need to make abortion illegal.
Again, these abortions were probably delayed, but some most likely just went to a different clinic. Would you rather have:
A) All abortion clinics shut down and made illegal, or
B) A few abortion clinics shut down, and have the rest just gain sympathy?

reply from: clamydia

in your understanding not all lives are equal since it appears as if in any case the 'unborn live' counts more than the one of the mother. I, as a women, have actually a problem that you as a MAN, have such a great passion for something you will never experience and you will never understand fully - being pregnant and giving birth to another being.

reply from: AshMarie88

Everyone is CREATED equal. The law may say not everyone is equal (like in the times of slavery, remember?) but that doesn't make it so. They constantly ignore our Constitution and its guidelines.
And as long as MEN continue to help women get pregnant, they have every right to THEIR CHILD!
Just because men can't get pregnant and give birth, doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on abortion or such things.

reply from: yoda

It's impossible to logically refute it. Which of us would stand idly by and let someone kill millions of healthy newborn babies, even if it was legal?

reply from: yoda

Obviously, if I thought it was, I'd be getting my rifle ready and planning my next move, and I'm not doing that.
But regardless of whether it is "the" answer, or "an" answer, or "no" answer, I'm sure of one thing: Trying to tell other prolifers how they ought to be conducting themselves in this "war" against abortion is NOT "the answer".......

reply from: yoda

Don't we all "stoop" when we use force to protect the innocent? How was his use of force different from that of a SWAT team member who rescues a room full of kindergarten students from a madman? (other that legality, of course)
I'm agnostic, so I'm not primarily concerned with whether people are going to "change", but I really don't think that there is much likelihood of "change" between the parking lot and the killing room of the abortuary..... of course, anyone can "change" at any time, any place, but the odds are much greater that a dedicated killer will kill over and over again before they will "change". Would you be primarily thinking about the possibility of "change" if a lunatic was about to kill a room full of born kids?

reply from: yoda

That's one of the most bizarre things that's ever been said in defense of baby killing.
We do NOT endorse the killing of mothers. You DO endorse the killing of babies.
BIG difference!

reply from: galen

I always think about the possibility of change Yoda....
even when faced with the worst our society can do.
Mary

reply from: NalaP

Don't we all "stoop" when we use force to protect the innocent? How was his use of force different from that of a SWAT team member who rescues a room full of kindergarten students from a madman? (other that legality, of course)
Fantastic point, yodavater!

reply from: yoda

Okay, that's good. Optimism is always good.
Does that possibility mean to you that one should never use force to protect the innocent?

reply from: galen

yoda,
lethal force... absolutely not... a kick in the butt... sure.
mary

reply from: yoda

Ah......... okay........... and how do you administer this "kick in the butt" to a person pointing a gun at your or other innocent people?

reply from: JohnGlenn

This fails to actually address the question. Focus and try again.

You seem to imply shooting an abortionist is morally sound once abortion is illegal yet not acceptable now. You do understand that the justness (morality) of defending unborn equally (shooting abortionists) is not contingent upon sociaties acceptance or rejection of their personhood or abortion.
Document your claim to this probability.
You do understand that PP admits that once an appointment is broken (for whatever reason) that the client is not likely to reschedual.
Again, document your claim such is "most likely" given that:
1] there were no other abortuaries in this area and
2]that the abortion chamber was unable to find an abortionist in this area and had to fly this "circuit" riding abortionist in from another state.
3] the abortuary was unable to find a replacement for months
4] many other baby killers QUIT killing when they heard of Paul Hill's courageous action
There are other choices besides just these.
There are not that many abortuaries left and fewer baby killers.
We could actually lend moral support to those willing to defend equally and more would follow- given thatthe USA today newspaper reported over 10,000 abortion clinic arsons in a 10 year period (1990-2000) this could shut down more and more and more abortuaries and make fewer physicians willing to risk death, or loss of their property, this would shut down abortion faster than any politician will do it. There are not that many abortuaries left and fewer baby killers.
What kind of a weasel is sympathetic to baby killing?

I note that you also failed to address this answer to your false claim that some of Tiller's clients would just go to KC. The KC abortion chambers do not do LATE TERM abortions like George Tiller.
Why was that?

reply from: JohnGlenn

We aren't here for our own satisfaction of kiicking the baby killer in the ass.
How will a "kick in the butt" stop the abortionist from killing the baby?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Okay, that's good. Optimism is always good.
Right, galen now accepts that some violence; such as a good kick in the butt is acceptable.
It appears to me that Galen has accepted violence either for her own recreation or for her own satisfaction, I'm just trying to figure out how a good kick in the butt will stop the abortionists from killing babies?
Now all that is needed is to get galen to focus her acceptance of violence in a more productive venue, such as how hard does that kick in the ass get to be?For instance, can it be done with a bumper of a large vehicle, say a step side van or loaded semi truck? (I have seen that Covenant Transport has prolife bumperstickers on all their trailers)

reply from: yoda

Unfortunately, there are a number of circumstances where applying the foot to the rectal area is not appropriate. That leaves one with the choice of escalating the force, or doing nothing and allowing the innocent to suffer and/or die. That's one of those "You got to walk that lonesome valley" things.

reply from: galen

would I push someone out of the way or otherwise disrupt thier ability to think long enough to get a shot off.... yep. thats what self defense is for....would i kick them in the throat or other area that might be fatal... not on your life. force ( physical) can be used to disarm someone. A gun is not necessary... However i have NEVER had to use it( force) myself, my words have alwayse been enough to either shame them or confuse them and disarm them.
Mary

reply from: yoda

I'm afraid you're drifting into the realm of science fiction now, Mary. There is no non-lethal defense against firearms (in the hands of one skilled in their use) that is practical or effective most of the time. You'd have to be Superman, Superwoman, or at least the Kung Fu guy to even have a slim chance.
Have you actually confronted an angry, armed man yet, or is that how you would "like to" handle such a situation?

reply from: galen

yes i believe that i stated before that i have confronted and angry armed man... one held a gun to a newborn's head and tried to get his wife to leave with him... he was doped out of his mind and responded to simple scolding and shame, dropped the pistol on the floor and walked out of the building.
the other held a knife to my throat and responded to a good hard stomp on the insole, which made him dropp the knife. I then proceded to get as far away from him a possible, while he decided to run out the back door. the knife was picked up by the authorities who ID'ed him by prints and arrested him 2 days later without incident.
so far the people who have used these items on me i guess have not been " skilled' in there use... but it has been my experience that thugs usually are not.
Mary


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics