Home - List All Discussions

how old does a child have to be-

by: RobertFerguson

How old does a child have to be- before it is legitimate to defend her with force?

reply from: galen

what kind of force?
mary

reply from: yoda

Defense of a child is legitimate at any age. There is no reason to discriminate with regard to defending life. The only question is how best to do that.
Welcome to the forum, btw, Robert.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Mary asks: "what kind of force?"
whatever force is legitimate in defense of the BORN child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Thanks for the welcome, Yoda.
"best" is a relative term, isn't it. That would vary with each persons morals and ethics.
I agree with your premise, however- would you agree that for some- there might be a specific tactical calling that does not need for it to be the 'best' way.
I know your answer- but for those who may be dicussing this for th eforst time, would you voice your agreement that whatever force is legitimate in defense of the BORN child is alos legitimate in defense of the PREBORN child?

reply from: yoda

There is no reason to disagree with that statement, as far as I'm concerned.
I assess a person's actions by their intentions, and by their sincerity. I do not presume to substitute my judgement for those of any sincere prolifer. And I would presume that any sincere prolifer would use the "best" tactic that they knew of, in their opinion.

reply from: bradensmommy

Just like a similar question we've asked...
How old does a child have to be to be considered a person, a legal one, at that?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Let me clarify my answer: I know of noone that would say a "child" of any age should not be defended. The issue really boils down to what point in a person's life do they become a "child". When a person accepts a preborn as a "child" is when they become defenders of defensive-action. The real question should be: when does a person become a person?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Often times many "best" tactics are needed to win a war, let alone a battle.
A sincere antibabykilling advocate may use education to stop a young mother from aborting. That is good.
A sincere antibabykilling advocate may use graphic signs. Also a good tactic.
They may vote prolife, volunteer at a PCC, speak at churches or community groups. All good things.
The antibabykilling advocate may offer last min intervention at abortuary sidewalks, also a good thing.
Since "best" is a relative term each person can debate that there own tactic is best.

However, for many many abortion bound children ALL of these and every other tactic of the sincere anti abortion activist has not stopped the killing of several thousand babies a day for multible years.
Can we really say that these were "best" for these dead children?
it's not really a matter of best but legitimate. All of the above mentioned tatctics are legitimate tactics.
My question is how old must a child be before force is also a legitimate tactic?

reply from: RobertFerguson

legal does not make for moral or legitimate, does it?

reply from: RobertFerguson

do not most prolifers agree that life begins at conception?
That has been an age old debate tactic. I am willing to accept that most prolifers believe that life begins at conception- and debate from this given premise. can we do that?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
If you'd like. Given that premise, all means of defense that is legitimate for the born is legitimate for the preborn as well.

reply from: faithman

Your question will not garner an honest answere here. Most have bought into the "official" pro-life stance that agrees with Planned Parenthood. A pre-born womb child is a second class citizen, and does not deserve the same protection under the law as a born child. Most would praise the under ground of WW2 for blowing up railroad tracks that gave transport of jews to the death camps.
We call abortion an holocost, but let one abortion clinic get burned, and priest for life puts a $50,000 bounty on you, to help a pro-abort government catch you. Paul Hill uses the same force that is legal to defend a born child, and Flip the switch Benham, says he would inject the poision himself. No sir mister Ferguson, you won't be getting any honest answere here. Faceit. Main stream pro-life does not believe a womb child is a person either. Other wise they would do more than have a banquet for care net.

reply from: faithman

The answer is very clear, and unfortunately, our society has dictated that prior to birth, the mother is the only person who can decide whether her child should be protected. Her wishes determine whether use of force to protect the unborn child is a legitimate action.
Unfortunately, morality is not an issue unless the mother says so, and only her morality is considered at present. Legality is, by definition, a determining factor of legitimacy.
Some may not like this answer, but it is not a matter of opinion.
It is sad, but factual.

reply from: RobertFerguson

That certainly seems to be the right answer for those who that claim the child begins at conception.
But there seems to be a mixed message by anti-baby-killing advocates that accepts the value that the proabortion folks place on "personhood".
Why such a devaluation in order to distance themselves from total equality of the preborn child?

reply from: faithman

Your question will not garner an honest answere here. Most have bought into the "official" pro-life stance that agrees with Planned Parenthood. A pre-born womb child is a second class citizen, and does not deserve the same protection under the law as a born child. Most would praise the under ground of WW2 for blowing up railroad tracks that gave transport of jews to the death camps.
We call abortion an holocost, but let one abortion clinic get burned, and priest for life puts a $50,000 bounty on you, to help a pro-abort government catch you. Paul Hill uses the same force that is legal to defend a born child, and Flip the switch Benham, says he would inject the poision himself. No sir mister Ferguson, you won't be getting any honest answere here. Faceit. Main stream pro-life does not believe a womb child is a person either. Other wise they would do more than have a banquet for care net.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Robert, do you know that not only did Harriet Tubman secretly give money to John Brown, but also only missed the raid on Harper's Ferry because of illness? This was not something she drew attention too and not something others have pointed out throughout history. Even she was conflicted in taking violent action to defend herself feeling somehow this was unseemly perhaps. She was torn between defending the rights she knew she posessed and acting under an uncomprehending gaze.

reply from: yoda

This is purely semantics. In my view, "best' can be singular or plural. We all do the "best" that we can.
Age cannot be considered the determinate factor. Force is "legitimate" to defend a child, no matter what the age of the child.

reply from: yoda

There is no reason to consider the meaning of such words as a matter of "belief", as though it was a religious question. There are standard reference materials which tell us generally accepted usages of such words.
"Person" is typically defined as "the body of a human being", in most dictionaries. Therefore, in the vernacular sense we are people, we "have personhood" at the moment we become human beings, which is of course at fertilization. The only usage of that word which has any restrictions on it is the legal usage, so unless one is discussing legal matters, we are all "persons" at fertilization.

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: JusticeThenMercy
Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
Personhood is a proabort tactic. Why would prolifers ever use it to devalue the child?
Are they just lying when they claim the believe a baby is worthy of protection from conception when they denounce those who use force?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: JusticeThenMercy
Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
Personhood is a proabort tactic. Why would prolifers ever use it to devalue the child?
Are they just lying when they claim the believe a baby is worthy of protection from conception when they denounce those who use force?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

IMO, it's because they (the anti-defensive-action-pro-lifers) are, at the core of their own commitments, not committed to addressing the unjust nature of the preborn being killed. They are committed to something else (whatever that might be). This is tantamount to saying they are ultimately committed to themself, if we drill far enough into the reasons. It's really pretty simple: the implications of taking the stand that defending the pre-born with the same means legitimate for defending a born person are too great for them to face, when compared to their real agenda.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: JusticeThenMercy
Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
Personhood is a proabort tactic. Why would prolifers ever use it to devalue the child?
Are they just lying when they claim the believe a baby is worthy of protection from conception when they denounce those who use force?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

No. They are showing their real committment - to themself.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: JusticeThenMercy
Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
Personhood is a proabort tactic. Why would prolifers ever use it? It's only use is to devalue the child.
Are they just lying when they claim the believe a baby is worthy of protection from conception when they denounce those who use force?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Well, I can see your reasoning, and I do not disagree with it. However, because we are talking about "legitimate" actions and the basis for denying defensive action as legitimate by our detractors is founded in what is legal, this therefore becomes a legal discussion. As you pointed out earlier, even in a legal discussion it becomes shallow because the semantics are easily shown to amount to nothing more than demagoguery.
Perhaps this is why the issue of when human life begins has never been litigated - the opposition would lose on all sides. It wouldn't even be close!!!

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: JusticeThenMercy
Yes,"life"; but not personhood. Most do not believe personhood begins at conception. That is the reason there is such a prevelant position for exceptions in abortion laws that restrict abortion on demand. However, those that do believe a person begins at conception repudiate that "belief" when they do not consider that human being worth defending the same as the born.
Personhood is a proabort tactic. Why would prolifers ever use it? It's only use is to devalue the child.
Are they just lying when they claim the believe a baby is worthy of protection from conception when they denounce those who use force?

reply from: RobertFerguson

I see.
So, those who condemn an equal defense for ALL children are only against abortion so long as it fits their narrow views.
That's dispicable.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I do not believe it is purely semantics when many if not most antiabortionist denounce using the same force to save an unborn life as they would deem legitimate to defend a born life.
If there are any semantics being played- it is with those who discriminate against the preborn child.
I agree.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Your question will not garner an honest answere here. Most have bought into the "official" pro-life stance that agrees with Planned Parenthood. A pre-born womb child is a second class citizen, and does not deserve the same protection under the law as a born child. Most would praise the under ground of WW2 for blowing up railroad tracks that gave transport of jews to the death camps.
We call abortion an holocost, but let one abortion clinic get burned, and priest for life puts a $50,000 bounty on you, to help a pro-abort government catch you. Paul Hill uses the same force that is legal to defend a born child, and Flip the switch Benham, says he would inject the poision himself. No sir mister Ferguson, you won't be getting any honest answere here. Faceit. Main stream pro-life does not believe a womb child is a person either. Other wise they would do more than have a banquet for care net.
Hmmm, such discrimination! If prolifers like Flip the switch Benham are so intolerant of the preborn being deserving equal protection- who will give a hoot for them? None of the prolifers here?
If they do not accept all the help possible fo rthe unborn child, is this just a place to gather for coffee and donuts, like many churches?
I would like to hear from them as to what possible reasons could be given to discriminate against the preboirn child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The answer is very clear, and unfortunately, our society has dictated that prior to birth, the mother is the only person who can decide whether her child should be protected. Her wishes determine whether use of force to protect the unborn child is a legitimate action.
Unfortunately, morality is not an issue unless the mother says so, and only her morality is considered at present. Legality is, by definition, a determining factor of legitimacy.
Some may not like this answer, but it is not a matter of opinion.
Morality is not established by the mother. Morality is very much the issue.
So it is your belief that there are no higher power than the mother and the law?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

It's not the truth that people have a hard time swallowing....it's always the implications!
"Narrow is the way...few there be that find it"

reply from: RobertFerguson

Ahh So in YOUR eyes, human power and authority is more important than the human life.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Beliefs do not change much... actions do.
Do you act like there is no greater power than the mother and the law? You must be "prochoice" then.. huh?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Interesting!
I suspect, though I have no proof, taht such support for those willing to offer a just defense to the preborn child using force. At least to the families of such, after they are publically known.
Do you believe that it is moral to defend yourself from an unjust aggressor?

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I'm discussing the worth of this child. That is also morally acceptable.
My life has hardly been spent standing out of harms way.
you have not yet proven that treating the preborn child equally is wrong.
Would you defend yourself from an unjust aggressor?
How is stopping an abortion wrong? How is the many of baby killers who stopped killing babies in fear of their lives wrong? How is the fact that the abortuary where Paul Hill killed the unjust aggressor was not able to find another baby kiler willing to come kill for months, wrong? Just think of all the babies saved.
of course, for YOU this compromised YOUR movement. Of course it stopped alot of babies form being killed. Seems your movement is is conflict- perhaps you need a laxative.
Again, you have not proven that it is not good judgement to not discriminate and to defend the preborn child equally.

reply from: faithman

I didn't say that, did I? Are you just here to throw rocks? If so, you waste both our time. Care to actually address my responses?
How about telling us exactly what strategy you propose to prevent abortions. Put up or shut up. I won't respond to any more BS. If you want to attempt to defend your position, I will accomodate you with a serious debate, but if you don't really have a valid argument, don't waste bandwidth.
Hey fergy; I have to agree with chimp chump on this one. He was just stating the facts. He never said he agreed with them. Throw down the gauntlet plan and clear. We ain't agonna chase around the bush. [unless you be a weasel, then monkey man might entertain himself for a while.]

reply from: faithman

Good question, and one which has yet to be answered.
One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

This has been discribed. FORCE. When asked what kind of force.. the answer was whatever force that can be used to defend a BORN child.
so is "choice" butin these context we understand that it means to have the right to willfully choose to kill a baby in the womb.
of course, but let's keep this discussioninthe context of the thread.
How old does a child have to be to for you to justify the use of FORCE to defend it?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

"Violent", non-violent, legal, illegal, or some variety in between, is an all-inclusive group. It is my contention that you cannot accept non-violent (defensive action) and rationally exclude violent, as legitimate/justifiable. Either it is legitimate to defend thte innocent or it is not. The means of defense is another discussion that is approriate to discuss in terms of efficacy, but not in terms of legitmate/justifiable.
For me to answer your question would be to allow you to beg the question.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Good question, and one which has yet to be answered.
Mary Mary quite contrary!
My first reply answered this! You need to pay attention and quit posting falsehoods.

reply from: faithman

"Violent", non-violent, legal, illegal, or some variety in between, is an all-inclusive group. It is my contention that you cannot accept non-violent (defensive action) and rationally exclude violent, as legitimate/justifiable. Either it is legitimate to defend thte innocent or it is not. The means of defense is another discussion that is approriate to discuss in terms of efficacy, but not in terms of legitmate/justifiable.
For me to answer your question would be to allow you to beg the question.
One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

probably Mary never breaks a law....
....... if the law were the standard Christ would have been a sinner!
Jesus violated the following laws, according to the interpretations of the Sanhedrin, that day's Supreme Court: hygiene laws, Mark 7; Sabbath laws, Mark 2:23-3:5, Blasphemy laws, Mark 14:64.
Christ's resurrection form the grave violated Roman law concerning the seal placed on His grave stone.

reply from: RobertFerguson

it was more questioning the premise by stating it.... if he cleared it up- is established.

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

nor have you denied it.
I have. I stated from the beginning and have agreed with every poster who holds to the possition that preborn children shoudl not be discriminated against and that any force that that could be used in an attempt to stop afrom death should justifed in attempting the PREBORN childs death.
Where have you been?

promises promises
You can not even SEE the position let alone a defense of it. This is your problem not mine.

reply from: faithman

"Violent", non-violent, legal, illegal, or some variety in between, is an all-inclusive group. It is my contention that you cannot accept non-violent (defensive action) and rationally exclude violent, as legitimate/justifiable. Either it is legitimate to defend thte innocent or it is not. The means of defense is another discussion that is approriate to discuss in terms of efficacy, but not in terms of legitmate/justifiable.
For me to answer your question would be to allow you to beg the question.
Do you fail to understand that what is "legitimate/justifiable" is determined by legality? Do you really mean to discuss what you, personally, find "acceptable?
According to your wording, since it is justifiable to use lethal force to protect a born child from violence, it is also justifiable to use lethal force against a mother to prevent her from aborting........ That doesn't really make sense, does it? Would you like to revise your statement now?
One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: faithman

Good question, and one which has yet to be answered.
Mary Mary quite contrary!
My first reply answered this! You need to pay attention and quit posting falsehoods.
Your response was deliberately vague and evasive. Are you contending that it would be acceptable to stand in front of an abortion clinic and physically assault women who attempt to enter? Is it acceptable to kill an abortionist in between abortions, or must we "catch him in the act?" Since the circumstances are not the same between a born child and an unborn one, the circumstances under which they might be "defended" is also not the same.
Please specifically state how you believe force might be justifiably utilized in their defense!
Ah Ha!!! And so there it is. The pre-born do not deserve the same protection as a born child. Like most main stream pro-lifers, gorilla gums says that pre-borns are second class citizens, and do not deserve the same protection as the born.

reply from: RobertFerguson

That is true. Of course, I have also not suggested that "treating the preborn child equally is wrong."
so you accept that any force used in an attempt to save a BORN humans life is equally acceptable to use for attempts oto stop the preborn death?
In most circumstances, it would be legal for me to do so. If I were arrested for a crime I did not commit, the arresting officer might be considered an "unjust aggressor," but it would not be legal for me to offer any resistance, and I would not do so.
keep on topic.
We are talking about those taking deadly force.

Your logic is faulty.
How would that defend the innocent preborn life from death?

I could say the same thing with your attempts to sideline the discussion.

No babies were killed atthat abortuary the day Paul Hill defended those 32 from death. Prolifers reported many baby killers stopped killing babies directly after Paul Hill took action. You can deny this if it makes you feel better.
Then you should work for that means. I do not put my trust in the laws of man.

Christians do not put the faulty opinion of the public over God's opinion.

I think it was positive for the babies that those 32 were not killed and that many many many abortionists quit killing babies in fear of their lives.
Again, you have not specifically defined what measures of "defense" you deem appropriate.........

reply from: RobertFerguson

It is recognized that you accept the laws of man over those of God.
Why are you deceptive? Justice before mercy is speaking of protecting from death. How would such an act be consider defensive against death?
No. yet you keep using it to your own detriment. You just look foolish when you claim such is a defese againstthe child's death or there is any such words coming from those who advocate for an equal defense.
Would you like to revise your statement now?
Perhaps you should- if you want to be taken seriously.

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

whatever force is legitimate in defense of the BORN child
no, it was inclusive.
again with your foolishness? How does assulting women defend the child from death?

This is certainly being discussed. What is your thoughts?
You have not shown circumstances are substantially different to justify discrimianting as to thei rdefense.
So morals are circumstantial in all cases? Based on what? The mother desicion to willfully kill? The curent law that suggests unborn children are less worthy of an equal defense?
There are no absoutes morals for you? Or just not as they apply to the preborn child?
If the life of a BORN child were being threatened by an unjust aggressor- it would be justifiable to use lethal force in an attempt to stop the killing. I see no moral reason to discriminate against the unborn. Do you?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

"Violent", non-violent, legal, illegal, or some variety in between, is an all-inclusive group. It is my contention that you cannot accept non-violent (defensive action) and rationally exclude violent, as legitimate/justifiable. Either it is legitimate to defend thte innocent or it is not. The means of defense is another discussion that is approriate to discuss in terms of efficacy, but not in terms of legitmate/justifiable.
For me to answer your question would be to allow you to beg the question.
Do you fail to understand that what is "legitimate/justifiable" is determined by legality? Do you really mean to discuss what you, personally, find "acceptable?
Do I fail....no! I am in disagreement that is the standard for justification of an action. One person can be right and a whole system of law wrong. For example, Rosie Parks was right and justified in violating the law that would have made her sit in the back of the bus.
No. You presuppose that I am referring to anyone specifically. However, when the preborn child's death is imminent, it is justifiable to use lethal force if necessary against the one who poses the threat - the abortionist - if it is justifiable to use such force to protect a born child.
If one, then the other.

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Ah, but Rosa Parks did not kill the busdriver..........
The instant question is about justification to take illegal action and Rosa Parks exemplifies the just nature of disobeying current (lower) law in the face of one's Natural Rights as a human being.
ROFLMAO!
Please explain the humor you see.
What if the mother chooses an alternative method? Are you saying a mother who wishes to abort poses no threat to her unborn child? An abortionist poses no threat to any child unless the mother allows it.
Why do you confuse this? May I say, duuuuuuhhhhhhh, no kidding! The point remains though, the abortionist kills the preborn child, with the mothers consent. That as a given, if you proclaim the preborn child to be a human being, then you discriminate unjustly if the born child can be defended by all means necessary, including the use of lethal force.
You're (allbeit, veiled) ad hominem argument aside, and attempt to derail the discussion will not work. If you want to discuss the issues around which someone has, or would, use force against abortionists, we can have that dicsussion; but to have it before we can have a concensus that use of lethal force as a defensive means are legitimate seems self-defeating.

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

No babies were killed in my livingroom either, but that doesn't prove fewer babies died during that time. If you can't offer substantiation, your claims are purely conjecture.
Hmmmmm.......
1. Thirty two babies were on Dr. Britton's schedule of death
2. As like weeks upon weeks prior, those babies that were schedule, in fact, were killed
3. Dr, Britton was killed
4. Each of the thirty two mothers went away still pregnant that day
It's pure silliness to think that is "conjecture".
That doesn't prove that fewer women aborted though, does it?
The national statistics of Planned Parenthood and the CDC have consistently reported fewer and fewer abortions over the last dozen or so years. Is this coincidence that it coincides with Paul Hill and Michael Griffin (among a few others) use of defensive lethal force? I think not.
You do not know whether those 32 babies were eventually killed or not!
Why does that matter how much longer they lived? We know they all lived at least one more day and most likely at least another week or two for most. It has been reported that one of the 32 did not get killed at all.
You seem to me to be arguing, either as a "devil's advocate" or otherwise, just like the pro-aborts argue. Why?
This is certainly being discussed. What is your thoughts?
My thoughts are that getting you to clarify your position is going to be nearly impossible if you make no attempt to answer my questions. You are the one who seems to be advocating violence, not me.
Which questions are left unanswered?
I see you have abandoned the argument of legitimacy and now wish to discuss justification.
Is there a difference? If so, would you define the difference? I think I am speaking for Robert too, when I say they are used synonimously.
Okay. How does that speak to the question of legitimacy?
I'll let Robert speak for himself. For me, yes, if arguing for its legitmacy is advocacy. Every time a stinking baby-killer meets his end, I have a party at my house and we rejoice all together, just like they did at the end of The Wizard of Oz: "ding dong, the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead..."

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

OK, so they weren't aborted that day. I cancelled an appointment a week ago, does that prove I never went to the doctor? Really, I find it hard to believe you fail to understand this.
So, how long does the child need to be alive to be considered successful defense in your eyes?

reply from: yoda

Good analogy.
I want to point out to those who are "shocked" by the nature of Rober and JTM's questions, you shouldn't be. They are serious questions that every serious prolifer, antiabortionist, and/or antibabykilling advocate ought to think very seriously about.
Think about them slowly and deliberately, don't give knee-jerk answers just to put separation between you and them...... that ain't gonna work.
Okay, you've chosen to take a non-violent path in your quest to save babies, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there are some who have chosen a violent path, and if you're going to say there's something "wrong" with that path, be fully prepared to support your statement. Don't just quote slogans and homilies.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: on some other forums, I and other prolifers have been childed by proaborts in this way....... they say "Hey, if I were an anti-choicer and I really, truly believed that zef's were babies, I'd be out there right now physically stopping those people from killing them... why aren't you?"
I've even had to censor some of them, because they crossed the line into actually goading people towards illegal violence. Regardless of one's opinion, that will get your forum shut down in a hurry.
So how do you answer those proaborts who say you are a wiennie and a coward for not defending those babies with your own life? How do you answer those antibabykilling advocates who say that it is legitimate to use the same means to defend unborn babies that we use to defend born babies? Think about those questions before you answer.
If you say to the proabort that "violence is never the answer", then you must be prepared to answer when they ask you if you would use violence to stop a madman from killing babies in a nursery. Would you? Or would you "try non-violent means" while he killed more babies?
If you say to the antibabykilling advocate that we cannot use the same force to defend unborn babies that we would gladly use to defend born babies, aren't you going down the same road as the proaborts in discriminating, and drawing an arbitrary line?
Am I advocating violence? No, I'm not. I'm advocating that you take these questions seriously, and don't throw out flippant answers. We are all better for having thought seriously about serious issues such as life and death. Come up with some serious answers.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

While you're learning about debate terminology, you might want to look up Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Are you suggesting the abortionists' own statistics are irrelevant to answer your question/assertion?
I'll take understanding the subject matter over a superior grasp of the Latin any day!!!

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

While you're learning about debate terminology, you might want to look up Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
....besides, cum hoc is about causation, not about siting studies to support an assertion.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

So now 32 babies weren't saved, only one was 'b]claimed to have been saved, and you offer no proof of that even? I wonder how Paul feels about that, and I also wonder if some chickenscratch activist encouraged him to commit that murder in the same way you and Robert are attempting to influence the readers of this forum!
You are seemingly encouraging people to commit murder, but I'm the "devil's advocate?"
I'll be gone for a few days and unavailable to a computer, so take it or leave it: I have spoken plainly and if you can't handle that, or if it confuses you, learn to read more carefully and do not jump to conclusions. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Geez! You said:
implying that you only supported the use of force against the abortionist. I pointed out the logical inconsistency of this implication, and now I'm unsure if you're comprehension is lacking or if you are simply an "artful dodger." You and your friend both seem to be hesitant to give straight answers on this forum.
You're killing me here! You obviously do not understand what ad hominem means either! I think it's funny when people use terminology incorrectly, presumably thinking it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about!
We have already established that no effort to interfere directly with a woman's choice to abort is legitimate. I believe I am also beginning to understand your position. You are just interested in encouraging others to commit murder against abortionists if my take is accurate, and I'm assuming you have not and never will consider such extreme measures yourself.
I believe you to be either insincere or stupid. It's difficult to conclude that you're stupid!

reply from: RobertFerguson

Were 32 scheduled to die in yoru living room?
So you say..
Noone is dicating anything, we have dealt with this false accusation before.
We are simply showing from God's word how he has shown His opinion on murder vs defensive killings. justifiable homocides and others.
Fewer baby killers- fewer dead babies. DUH!
This is certainly being discussed. What is your thoughts?
I am the one asking the question. Perhapos you should start a new thread if you want more or your own answers first.
I see you have abandoned the argument of legitimacy and now wish to discuss justification.
Not at all. I just see that some place man's law over God's character to claim illegitimacy. As tho man has some higher source of morality.
Prudent to who? Certainly those being defended....
gee, I do not know how much more clear I could be. I thimk the statement has alot of quality.
Do you know of others seeking to kill babies that the killing of them would prevent the death? Apply them too then.

reply from: faithman

Good analogy.
I want to point out to those who are "shocked" by the nature of Rober and JTM's questions, you shouldn't be. They are serious questions that every serious prolifer, antiabortionist, and/or antibabykilling advocate ought to think very seriously about.
Think about them slowly and deliberately, don't give knee-jerk answers just to put separation between you and them...... that ain't gonna work.
Okay, you've chosen to take a non-violent path in your quest to save babies, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there are some who have chosen a violent path, and if you're going to say there's something "wrong" with that path, be fully prepared to support your statement. Don't just quote slogans and homilies.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: on some other forums, I and other prolifers have been childed by proaborts in this way....... they say "Hey, if I were an anti-choicer and I really, truly believed that zef's were babies, I'd be out there right now physically stopping those people from killing them... why aren't you?"
I've even had to censor some of them, because they crossed the line into actually goading people towards illegal violence. Regardless of one's opinion, that will get your forum shut down in a hurry.
So how do you answer those proaborts who say you are a wiennie and a coward for not defending those babies with your own life? How do you answer those antibabykilling advocates who say that we must not fail to use the same means to defend unborn babies that we use to defend born babies? Think about those questions before you answer.
If you say to the proabort that "violence is never the answer", then you must be prepared to answer when they ask you if you would use violence to stop a madman from killing babies in a nursery. Would you? Or would you "try non-violent means" while he killed more babies?
If you say to the antibabykilling advocate that we cannot use the same force to defend unborn babies that we would gladly use to defend born babies, aren't you going down the same road as the proaborts in discriminating, and drawing an arbitrary line?
Am I advocating violence? No, I'm not. I'm advocating that you take these questions seriously, and don't throw out flippant answers. We are all better for having thought seriously about serious issues such as life and death. Come up with some serious answers.
One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Why the falsehoods? The only thing established cncerning women is that killing them would kill the child. But you knew that and just like falsehoods, huh?
I know you are not, but I'll let you prove this
Originally posted by: concernedparent
You are just interested in encouraging others to commit murder against abortionists
Thank you for this documentation.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't think the Robert is a coward for discussing the appropriate use of force and I resent him being told he should "take action" before discussing the matter. I don't believe there is a moral basis for abstaining from force but a political one. The way I see it, MLK had the RIGHT to use force but non-violence was better politically. Nonviolence doesn't mean that violence is unjustified, it can also be the smartest way to win people over.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I appreciate that you support the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
But I just wanted to mention, being the abrasive fellow, I am... You do know that MLK was instrumental in hellping Planned Murderhood get a foot hold into the black communities, yes? Now more black babies are killed by abortion than are born.
Hard for me to look beyond this to any good he may have done....
I won't even go into the adultery and plagiarism except to mention them....
There is no evidence that MLK ever repented of these sins. Which means what about his ultimate fate?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I didn't know that. I heard a pro-choicer claim that MLK was their enemy b/c he was prolife? I certainly wouldn't admire him if it's true that he's proabortion, and I detest Klansman Sanger, their eugenics as documented by blackgenocide.com and others, so if you have a source for Mlk's activities with Planned Parenthood I would like to read it. I know about the adultery and plagiarism though -- although in the oral stuff it was tradition for Southern ministers to echo each other uncredited. I do not know if MLK repented which means I don't know about his fate. In another thread to you I cite Gandhi although I don't admire him -- being racist as well as kind of sick i.e saying he supported women's rights b/c of an English education and then sleeping with teenage girls to show he could withstand temptation for sex, but I think there is something to be strategy. I mean, I don't admire Genghis Khan but you can learn from him. Thanks for your post

reply from: ChristianSoldier

Interesting discussion.
Is Robert:
A) Attempting to lure prolifeamerica members into publicly advocating lethal force for the purpose of undermining or shutting down this forum? Is this but one of many forums he seeks to undermine?
B) Testing the waters as a prelude to recruiting death squad vigilantes?
C) Engaging in mental masturbation?
This thread is in its 5th page and he has yet to speak plainly on the issue.
Care to share your personal contributions to the cause of violent defense of the unborn? Time to put up or shut up, I'd say.

reply from: ChristianSoldier

I take it you are from http://www.armyofgod.com, Robert? Or are you just borrowing the name RobertFerguson?

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: yoda

You forgot D). None of the above.

reply from: ChristianSoldier

You forgot D). None of the above.
No I didn't.
It's one of the three, most likely C. If he is sincere in his radical beliefs, unless he's using a prison computer, he either hasn't been caught yet, or is simply posturing.
The day pro-lifers use lethal force to stop abortions is the time to change the name pro-life.
Unless and until abortion once again becomes the criminal activity that it should be, all use of force to prevent it is criminal.
Like it or don't.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Or it could be that "RobertFerguson" wishes
for anti-abortion advocates that claim abortion is murder and believe that the child is a human being from conception to examine their reluctance to one who would apply the SAME and EQUAL use of force they would deem acceptable for themselves to the preborn child.
Which makes most sense given your long relationship with "RobertFerguson"?

reply from: ChristianSoldier

So what is your plan of action? How effective do you suppose you can be and for how long? What greater impact do you suppose murderous vigilante tactics will have on the pro-life movement? All you will accomplish is to make martyrs of the abortionists and get yourself hung in the process.
Take a deep breathe and check reality.
p.s. - if you aren't "RobertFerguson", the person, you should post under another username.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Good analogy.

yet only one has even attempted to address these questions with an answer.
Right! We are to examine things according to scripture. There is no evidense that God sees defense that take a life as murder-
I too use non-violence to stop abortions for many years and continue... however, taht is not the question here. it is whether or not we are consistant to say we accept if one defends themselves with force but not the preborn.
Wouldn't that be discrimination? If we are discriminatory. We should just admit it.
exactly! Nor should they say that I am not willing to offer documentation for my own views.
I am willing to discuss these things with those who actually answer the question possed.

I do not think that is a honest debate.
It's a proabort debate. Full of lies. I am not surpised to see the prolifers here using the same dishonesty though-
We do not have to adopt to accept that adoption is moral, accept when others do it, or even advocate for adoption.
You mean like when these prolifers are telling ME to go out and shoot an abortionist if I believe it is justifiable?
For the record. I have never called anyone a wienie or a coward for not using force to stop abortionists from killing babies.
However, I have had many prolifers call me a coward for not doing this. Is that the type of goading that you are speaking of? It's going on right here in this forum.
Just for the record again. I am not making such a demand. I am simply asking that we consider why force is moral to use to defend ourselves BORN humans, yet we do not accept thatthe preboirn are worthy of the same?
Most of these people who claim violence is never the answer are the same people who accept the passengers on the doomed fated 9/11/01 flight to be heros for using force!
YES! These types of prolifers are bias and dicriminate against the preborn child.
I suspect that they may understand that you are asking question that deserve honest answers. But still will not give any.
Probably it is a weak faith that will not be defended.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Do you also have disdain for those "heros" of flight 93?
How about Rev Dietrick Bonehoeffer and Rev Martin Neimoller who plotted with other Christians to ASSASINATE Hitler blow up RR tracks and similar force to defend the Jews?
Or is it just the preborn child that you do not accpet desrves the use of force in attempts to save it's life?

reply from: RobertFerguson

STOP with your falehoods and bearing of false witness! They are sinful!
Defensive action is NOT vigilantism.
There has not been one iota of proof offered that defensive action is murderous in God's eyes.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I reside in Mo. and am not borrowing any name

reply from: RobertFerguson

Really? Where? There seems to be a number of posters who wish to dismiss the efforts to see if the prolife community is consistent or not. And only a few who embrace free speech and Biblical teaching. That is really alarming.

reply from: yoda

You're entitled to your opinions, however misinformed they are.
He doesn't call himself "prolife".
Of course. So you equate legality with morality?

reply from: yoda

Faithman was quoting me in that post, so I'll respond. Yes, that's exactly the type of irrational goading I'm talking about.
My mistake. I went back and corrected it.
It's certainly a conviction based on a very shaky foundation. When one can say nothing other than to attack a debating opponent, that's an admission of error.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I do. The Bible contradicts your claim that we do not live in "God's eyes".
You mean like the Florida courts who executed Paul Hill without benefit of a fair trial, right?

Originally posted by: concernedparent
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

ALL of these terms do not apply to defensive actions because vigilantisim is about PAST deeds of the abortionist. Defense is not about retribution for PAST deeds.
if that is the best that you can do. Do not even waste my time.
BTW I HONOR MY WIFE AND DO NOT ENTER PRIVATE CHATS WITH JEZABEL WOMEN, DO NOT TRY TO AGAIN LURE ME INTO A PRIVATE CHAT WITH TEMPTREST WOMAN.

reply from: RobertFerguson

This seems to be the prevelant problem here.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Originally posted by: yodavater
My mistake. I went back and corrected it.
not a problem. I was just clarifying, something I am accused of not doing... strange huh?

reply from: RobertFerguson

You have a mouse in your pocket? Prove you live in "God's eyes" otherwise this is an argumentum ad ignorantium.
Readers see how disingenous your replies are. It should embarass you.
The Bible says that God's eyes are upon us.
I accept God's word. You may not. I need prove nothing of my faith.
Your lack of acceptance of it is to your detriment not mine. I do not expect the heathen to act according to God.
ROFLMAO! Hee Hee Hee Hee
Robert, no offense, but your assumption is wrong on so many levels that all I can do is LMAO!
So I have been informed. Worse yet that you choose a "longhaired she looking" profile

reply from: RobertFerguson

.....otherwise this is an argumentum ad ignorantium.
Speaking of ignoramuses
The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

reply from: faithman

Good analogy.

yet only one has even attempted to address these questions with an answer.
Right! We are to examine things according to scripture. There is no evidense that God sees defense that take a life as murder-
I too use non-violence to stop abortions for many years and continue... however, taht is not the question here. it is whether or not we are consistant to say we accept if one defends themselves with force but not the preborn.
Wouldn't that be discrimination? If we are discriminatory. We should just admit it.
exactly! Nor should they say that I am not willing to offer documentation for my own views.
I am willing to discuss these things with those who actually answer the question possed.

I do not think that is a honest debate.
It's a proabort debate. Full of lies. I am not surpised to see the prolifers here using the same dishonesty though-
We do not have to adopt to accept that adoption is moral, accept when others do it, or even advocate for adoption.
You mean like when these prolifers are telling ME to go out and shoot an abortionist if I believe it is justifiable?
For the record. I have never called anyone a wienie or a coward for not using force to stop abortionists from killing babies.
However, I have had many prolifers call me a coward for not doing this. Is that the type of goading that you are speaking of? It's going on right here in this forum.
Just for the record again. I am not making such a demand. I am simply asking that we consider why force is moral to use to defend ourselves BORN humans, yet we do not accept thatthe preboirn are worthy of the same?
Most of these people who claim violence is never the answer are the same people who accept the passengers on the doomed fated 9/11/01 flight to be heros for using force!
YES! These types of prolifers are bias and dicriminate against the preborn child.
I suspect that they may understand that you are asking question that deserve honest answers. But still will not give any.
Probably it is a weak faith that will not be defended.
just wanted to point out that the quotes on this post are mostly yodervater, not mine. Though I mostly do agree.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Bible does not condemn killing in defense by Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others..... scripture says that the HS gives beleivers witness as to the Bible.
You do not have the HS do you?
You are dishonest.
You say "I need prove nothing of my faith," but if your argument depends on your faith, then you do. Otherwise, well, look up argumentum ad ignorantium.
No, I really do not. Faith is faith.
'Faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen'
I answerd your lies with The Bible says that God's eyes are upon us
Besides, I HAVE given answer of my faith.
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

reply from: yoda

I realize some might jump to that conclusion, but it was a general question, not about anyone in particular.

reply from: yoda

Okay, this is the real problem: instead of debating the issues that Robert and others bring up, some are painting this as a personal contest to recruit supporters. That's hogwash. If you can't refute what they are saying with logic and/or documentation, do us all a favor and do battle with them by private email.
Otherwise, you are as much as admitting that you have no rebuttal to make.

reply from: faithman

Okay, this is the real problem: instead of debating the issues that Robert and others bring up, some are painting this as a personal contest to recruit supporters. That's hogwash. If you can't refute what they are saying with logic and/or documentation, do us all a favor and do battle with them by private email.
Otherwise, you are as much as admitting that you have no rebuttal to make.
I believe that organizations are more of a problem than a help. Every pro-lifer should act as an individual on the street. It is alot harder for the pro-aborts to fight our efforts if we act as individualls, and do not allow our selves to be lumped up together. I have a 501c3 but never take it to the street. We use it for donations and the production of material to suply the pro-life foot soldier. Our best weapon at present, is the I AM A PERSON image, that we will be glad to suply any serious pro-lifer. Just ask yodervater. So the alligation that I am trying to recruit is just not true.

reply from: faithman

Leave the prefix re, and the sufix al off and that is what you always offer, not rebuttal.

reply from: JohnGlenn

There are absolutes regarding what is right. Right is not subjective or situational.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement?
The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped.
To stand by would be immoral.
We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.

reply from: faithman

There are absolutes regarding what is right. Right is not subjective or situational.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement?
The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped.
To stand by would be immoral.
We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
Oh he believes that as far as his baby killing sister. He just thinks more of the abortionist than the preborn child. He just hasn't evolved sound reasoning yet.

reply from: faithman

There are absolutes regarding what is right. Right is not subjective or situational.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement?
The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped.
To stand by would be immoral.
We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
So who decides what those absolutes are? God? Yours or mine?
As we have stated numerous times, all 50 states have laws that allow for leathal force to protect life and property. One could legally kill some one who was going to do harm to a pregnant woman. The question you continue to refuse to answere is, if it is legal to kill some one about to do harm to a born child, then it is the same for a pre-born child. it isn't vengance, it is defence. thru out all of western history, it has been legal, and just to stop the aggessor by lethal force if nessisary.

reply from: faithman

I agree this is true. The key words are "legally kill," meaning "justifiable under the law" (but only in narrowly defined circumstances).

Well, technically, that is not a question, but the difference is that it is legal to defend a born child, but it is only legal to defend an unborn child if the mother wishes it to be defended.

Homicide is legally justifiable only in defense of an illegal killing. You may not storm FSP to save someone who killed an abortionist from execution, killing any police officer who attempts to stop you, even if you, personally, do not believe killing an abortionist is "wrong," and even if you do not believe killing the defenders of the abortionist is wrong.
Homicide is not justified in cases where no immediate threat exists either. The law does not allow you to kill someone because you believe they have posed a threat in the past, or will pose one in the future. How could Paul Hill know if Dr, Britton was coming in to tender his resignation?
Robert claimed Paul didn't get a fair trial, a right all Americans are entitled to. I ask you, did Dr. Britton get a fair trial?
It wasn't about britton getting a trial, it was about stopping him from killing womb children. there was reasonable suspiscion that britton was going to the clinic to kill.
If the government has become despotic, our founding documents tell us to throw it off. When the Government is going to unjustly exicute, that is despotic. Our rights do not come from government, the come from the Creator. The first of which is life. when one is going to take a life without cause, then they place their own in jeapardy. Either the womb child is a person with God given rights, or they are not. If they are indeed a person, then the asme defence laws apply. That is why hill did what he did. He wanted to out it to the test. The pro-abort government ignored the constitution, and the rule of law, and thousands of years of western culture, by killing hill with out allowing him to put on a justifiable homocide deffence, because they there was a good chance that a jury would aquit if they heard his case.

reply from: RobertFerguson

still waiting for your continued discussion of this important topic. How old does a child have to be?

reply from: RobertFerguson

That is similar, isn't it?
So let's continue down this reasoning. I think we both agree that the preborn is a person regardles of the immoral law. That is moral, yes?
Is it moral to defend a preborn child with force regardless of the immoral law? Even The Catholic American agrees that it is moral to do so.
What say you? Is it moral to discriminate against the preborn because of an immoral law that protects the baby killer?


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