Home - List All Discussions

VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

(Unless it's against babies, of course......)

by: yoda

Yes, apparently the gist of what we are being told is that we must not tolerate the kind of violence that has taken the lives of three abortionists, but that we MUST TOLERATE the violence that has taken 47 million lives of innocent babies.
Why, I ask you, must we tolerate the 47 million killings and not the 3?
Because the law tells us to?
Is that the extent of the morality of the prolife movement, obey the law and tolerate 47 million baby's deaths?

reply from: faithman

HOW DARE YOU EXPOSE THE ABSURD LOGIC OF "PRO_LIFE". THEY HAVE BANQUET TICKETS TO SELL!!!!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I know........ now I'll probably wind up having to buy 50 or a hundred tickets.....

reply from: faithman

Just be glad! It could have been 47 million more.

reply from: yoda

Well, I could "tolerate" 47 million more, but NOT 3 more........ know what I mean?

reply from: faithman

Well, three if rat poision for desert?

reply from: yoda

No no....... mustn't poison 3 rats..... now, if you want to poison 47 million of them, that would be okay.

reply from: faithman

Only if they are in momma rat, and she "choices" to terminate them.

reply from: faithman

SAy yoda, do you here chimp chatter? better duck. may be low flying passifist dung any moment. may haps we can get them anti police banners made this week. after all they kill to protect the inocent, and we just can't have that. NO KILLING, NO NOT ONE!

reply from: faithman

i support pre-borns being treated the same as the born. If it is right to use force to protect one then it is so for the other.

reply from: yoda

No, actually I have a filter for that, so I don't hear it. But it doesn't matter to me who says what, I'm still going to point out the hypocrisy of saying we must "not tolerate" violence against abortionists, but we "must tolerate" their violence against the babies that they kill.
Whose side are they on, anyway?

reply from: faithman

have many times but you refuse to accept.

reply from: faithman

No, actually I have a filter for that, so I don't hear it. But it doesn't matter to me who says what, I'm still going to point out the hypocrisy of saying we must "not tolerate" violence against abortionists, but we "must tolerate" their violence against the babies that they kill.
Whose side are they on, anyway?
they are on their own side of self importance. Most don't even realize how phony they truely are.

reply from: yoda

If we have come to the point where we judge our right to defend innocent life by what the government tells us, then we are truly lost.
When we give up the moral right to defend innocent life because of government decree, then we are no better than the corrupt government that made that decree.
We are then a party to that moral corruption, and we are then no better than the babykillers themselves.

reply from: faithman

but flip the switch benham, and Fr 30 pieces pravone, say we must be passive, and snitch out killers of baby killers? Aern't they the anointed leaders of all things pro-life? then you have our very own who flung the monkey dung CP who is SSSSOOO much smarter than any body else [just ask him he'll tell ya] say no killing at all. Shouldn't we just lay down to the words of the waffer worshipers and be passive while the evil agressors kill us all?

reply from: yoda

Well, there are individuals in many churches who are completely pacifist, even to the point of remaining passive as their loved ones are tortured and killed before their eyes.... and that's their choice. But as far as the leadership of any major churches go..... there are NO pacifists. All leadership of all major churches, Catholic included, do protect themselves physically........ either by use of locks and gates, or armed personal bodyguards, or both.
No, you will not see the leadership of any church or other religious organization forgo their personal protection....... the last major political figure to do that was Gandhi, and you see what happened to him.

reply from: ThunderKitten

There is NO NEED to kill the abortionist! If you want to permanently stop him from performing abortions, amputate his hands! DUH!!!
Who the hell can perform "surgery" without hands, anyway?

reply from: Shiprahagain

You know how people sometimes non-violently harass released pedophiles who move into their neighborhoods -- I wonder if such a solution would be a neat middle road between more and less militant proliefers.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Good idea!!! It's been discussed before.
Can you tell us how to amputate the arms of the abortionist?
Everyone knows how to use a gun, or at least should and target practicing is easy. But...
How to get the baby killer close enough to get his hands under an axe or guilteen?
I am willing to discuss this option again. It seems like a viable option to stop the baby killing by an abortionist

reply from: JohnGlenn

You don't think antiabortionists do that already? Of course "they" do!
Can you make some suggestions on what type of tactics could be utilized in case "they" may have left some out?

reply from: JohnGlenn

There you go agan with all your homo talk. You're quite consumed with homo interests aren't you?

reply from: JohnGlenn

but it's not offensive to imply a homo relationship between to confessing hetrosexual men?

reply from: JohnGlenn

That deserves a reposting, if there ever was a post deserving of such!
Ohhh Catholic American... come listen...

reply from: JohnGlenn

This of course is a lie. Only baby killers and accomplices were shot. The bodygaurd did not have a wife shot.
]
good idea. Let's discuss abuducting baby killers more. How can this be best done? Will you help?

of course you do.
]
Please post the quote of anyone who has claimed that violence is the ONLY solution to the abortion situation. no one has made this claim.
Why do you feel the need to lie? if your position is so strong- stick to it, not these lies.

reply from: JosieCashew

I remember that after two receptionists in Boston-area abortuaries were killed, a ton of flowers were placed on the sidewalks in front of the abortuaries. While I don't condone that kind of killing either of course, the idea of people marking THOSE deaths and not others that occurred every single week... well, you get the idea.
P.S. Had I lived closer to the abortuaries, I would have left flowers as well, with a note reading "For ALL who have died here." though I imagine some people probably thought the same thing-- and left a similar note.

reply from: JohnGlenn

you mean two baby killing accomplices, right?
Goes to show how dangerous it is to be an accomplice of baby killing, doesn't it?

reply from: JohnGlenn

June was an accomplice to the murders
Originally posted by: concernedparent
To continue to present any form of violence as the only solution to the abortion problem is self defeating. ]
Please post the quote of anyone who has claimed that violence is the ONLY solution to the abortion situation. no one has made this claim.
Why do you feel the need to lie? if your position is so strong- stick to it, not these lies.

reply from: coco

got a better idea how about we tie EVERY womens tubes to prevent them from getting pregnant so they wont have an abortion!!!!

reply from: JohnGlenn

What? You don't want to talk about kidnapping abortionists and chopping their hands off to stop abortions?
who said anything about a police officer? Not me.
Or how about a police officer's wife, who just happens to be with her husband
Prove this person just happened to be there and is not an accomplice. Identify this woman. I like to know who we are speaking of.

reply from: JohnGlenn

No one has made a claim that violence is the only solution to the abortion problem. Once or continually. It has never been made here.

reply from: JohnGlenn

tell me how it is good to not have any children.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Violence isn't always physical.
of course not. Some times violence is done to a building and not a physical person. Abortuaries are fire bombed often. An abortuary is a dangerous place. People should just not happen to be there.

reply from: coco

it will reduce the abortions in turn less bombing you and your friends will do

reply from: JohnGlenn

So, let me get this straight.
You love abortuaries that much?
that you would put an end to civilization in order to protect abortuary buildings from alledged bombings that "me and my friends" will do?
wow. You are really committed to meer bricks and mortar

reply from: godless

If murderers get the chair, I say stick their feet in a bucket of water, and aply a plugged in lamp cord. Hasn't everybody seen the pictures of the babies these monters kill? The only cure for a rabid dog, is a bullet between the eyes. It would be immorale to continue to allow these monsters to live in their insane condition. Anybody who could slaughter a child like that day in and day out ain't right. If there is a god, lets send the bastards to him.

reply from: galen

so what we do is kill everyone and everything on the planet?
yep if we are all dead then we won't have anyone preforming abortions anymore...wait oh yeah if we are all dead then we won't have anyone having babies anymore.
the thing that all the zealots seem to forget is that we are supposed to NOT KILL ANYONE. no matter what your moral/ spiritual belief system it is NEVER right to kill. that goes for the babies, the parents, the insane doctors ANYONE.
Anyone who takes the moral high ground and then turns arouns and makes ANY exception to the rules is a hyppocrite and a liar. To themselves and to society.
Mary
thou shall not kill....ever.

reply from: coco

So, let me get this straight.
FYI its called SARCASIM, but then again it will definatly erase women so they wont have abortions!!
You love abortuaries that much?
that you would put an end to civilization in order to protect abortuary buildings from alledged bombings that "me and my friends" will do?
wow. You are really committed to meer bricks and mortar

reply from: nsanford

Define tolerate.
You can tolerate whatever the hell you want. You can do whatever the hell you want. No person can force you tolerate something

reply from: yoda

Let me get you up to speed on this, ns. Another poster started a thread titled "Who is Robert Ferguson?", and the sub-title was "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED". So to be fair, the person who started that thread ought to be the one to define what they meant by "tolerated", but that person isn't posting much now. So the best I can tell you is that the most common usage of that word is "to allow"....... does that clear it up for you?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Being associated with baby killing has some natural violent consequences.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I have not once mentioned an "abortuary,
the post was not addressed to you.
Being associated with baby killing has it's natural consequences.
Can you name those killed during the bombing of an abortuary? You know, provide a list.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I wonder why God rewarded the "zealot" Phinehas for killing two people?
neat theory. But not supported by the Bible where God comandended many to kill.

reply from: JohnGlenn

You did't have anything to say, Coco?

reply from: coco

yes john glenn I LOVe abortions and abortionaries!!(is that how you spell them??)

reply from: JohnGlenn

it allows abortion to exsist doesn't it? There is no prohibition that stops all abortions. Abortion is not obsolete, nor repugnant to a large portion of society as shown in the latest vote in SDakota. Since 70% of abortions are done on those alligning themselves as Catholics and Christians it is not repugnant to them either.
Non-violence is very much "tolerant" of abortion.
tol·er·ate /?t?l??re?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
- verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3. Medicine/Medical. to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4. Obsolete. to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.

reply from: JohnGlenn

no, it's abortuary. A blend of abortion and mortuary. 'Abortuary'
Webster's New Millenniumtm Dictionary of English

reply from: JohnGlenn

Now why would there be a need to kill everything on the planet to use force to defend an unborn child? Might the baby killer be enough death?

reply from: galen

Don't know... where you allow the killing of one... it becomes that much easier to justify the killing of another. Look at Hiltler... and Pol Pot. First its the Jews and soon it becomes anyone who disagrees with the " leaders'. It is one of the reasons that i am so opposed to abortion. life at any stage should be given considerationand looked upon with the same grace that we view ourselves.
In my honest opinion I do not advocate the killing of ANYONE for ANY reason. and since God has not come down to command us to kill anyone in several thousand years it seems that maybe the zealots out there are either psychotic or using the word of God for thier own gain. HMMMM sounds a lot like some of the other bad people in the world.
Mary
thou shall not kill....

reply from: coco

galen this is what john glenn mention on another post
he Claim:
Originally posted by: thecatholicamerican
Without the comandment "Thou shall not kill"
The Truth:
"Thou shalt not kill"
The word "kill" (ratsach) in the Sixth Commandment is one of seven Hebrew words in the Old Testament (OT) used to describe the taking of life in one way or another.
It is important to define the specific meaning of this word to determine if this Law was actually violated by Paul Hill.
Ratsach appears 47 times in the OT. It is never used in the context of war, or in the case of self-defense (Exod. 22:2), accidental killing (Deut. 19:5), or in the execution of a person who has forfeited his life by "shedding man's blood" (Gen. 9:6).
It is also not used in the text describing how Moses slayed the Egyptian taskmaster (Exod. 2:12).
All of these Scriptures use a different word not found in the Sixth Commandment.
And clearly Scripture supports certain kinds of killing as viscerally regrettable but righteous nevertheless. In fact, there are times in Scripture when God commanded the killing of individuals even outside the context of war (Exod. 21:12-17,29; Lev. 20:1-5; Deut. 17:2-7; 2 Kings 9:6-10).

reply from: galen

all OT... did Christ ever say that we should slay anyone....?
Did He not pay the ultimate price so that we did not have too?
Did he not come here to earth to teach us that we did not have to live by the old laws , but to clarify the true meaning of God's word... If i wanted to live by the OT i would have converted to Judism.
When God himself comes down and corrects me on this I'll listen... untill then i think that i will go by the latest update... Christ.
Happy Advent.
Mary

reply from: Faramir

There are two different issues here and it is not one or the other.
I have not been here long enough to know the answer, and yoda has me and most of those who disagree with him about some things on ignore, so he will not answer me.
But he does not seem to be denouncing violence. Does yodavater approve of using violent means to oppose abortion? Has he ever denounced it?
If violence against abortion providers is strongly denounced, it does not mean accpetance or toleration of the violence of abortion, which is what he seems to be saying here.

reply from: Faramir

To not denounce it, when there is a clear opportunity to do so, is to give it tacit approval, imho.
And it is total BS that if a prolifer strongly denounces violence that he has misplaced his priorities, and somehow is making that more important than the babies.
In fact, couldn't a strong case be made that the violence harms the prolife movement? I have heard arguments that it gives the opposition "martyrs," and helps give them credibility.

reply from: Faramir

Is that why you have been "iggified"?

reply from: 4life

There are two different issues here and it is not one or the other.
I have not been here long enough to know the answer, and yoda has me and most of those who disagree with him about some things on ignore, so he will not answer me.
But he does not seem to be denouncing violence. Does yodavater approve of using violent means to oppose abortion? Has he ever denounced it?
If violence against abortion providers is strongly denounced, it does not mean accpetance or toleration of the violence of abortion, which is what he seems to be saying here.
This has been an issue of division between Yoda and myself. He will not denounce violence, and while he refuses to openly admit it, he has indirectly condoned it, even argued to justify it, defended others doing so, and joined in attacking those who dare denounce it. Fboy and Joe are rabid supporters of militant activism as well.
How do you personally feel about violence at abortion clinics?
If you can harrass them and scare them away, why not?

reply from: joe

Moron.
Defending innocent lives is not terrorism. You concernedparent love the murderer and share in their guilt.

reply from: joe

What do you think he was referring too.
The truth is becoming clear, you do not believe the unborn are actually human lives worthy of protection. You are with the terrorists and the assassins.
There will be no agreement between us until you treat the unborn with the same respect as the born...until then you are the enemy of the unborn. Guilty of advocating the violation of the inherent right to life of innocent human beings.

reply from: joe

There is no question who the idiot is.
What motive? You mean "defending innocent life". Is that the motive you are talking about, is that "subjective".
I have never seen someone dodging so desperately. Concernedparent you are clearly exposing the flaws in your "subjective" views.
"Relative Truth" will never logically make sense it only makes you guilty of this crime against humanity.

reply from: joe

I have never seen such delusion. You "won" nothing, the debate we had before is still ongoing and you ignoring my rebuttals show you the "loser".
Defending the assassins on 9/11 would make you guilty. Defending the assassins that kill unborn human life everyday makes you guilty.
Now walk away like the coward you are.

reply from: joe

Revealing isn't it. You are here for the reader and not for the unborn. You truly stand against the unborn.

reply from: yoda

You mean inside or outside?

reply from: 4life

You mean inside or outside?
Since you seem to habitually take words out of context and twist their meanings and play games with them, I'll have to see if I can come up with a better question that cannot be so manipulated by your dishonest and sneaky tactics:
How do you personally feel about unlawful violence directed at abortion clinic property and/or abortion provider personnell as a tactic for fighting the (unfortunate) lawful violence of abortion that occurs within the clinic? I know you denounce the violence that goes on within the walls of the clinic, as any prolifer does, but do you denounce unlawful violent means of fighting abortion, such as destroying property, harrassing personnell, and killing personnell?
If you decide to respond, pleast respond to this entire post, and not to a couple of words taken out of context. I know it's tempting, but please try.

reply from: sander

Don't be fooled Yoda...4life is none other than the famous fartnomore! LOL!
I know, I know...you weren't fooled, but holy cow...what an ego!

reply from: 4life

I don't think it takes an "ego" to come up with creative ways to communicate with the cowardly and evasive.
Do you support or denounce violence by prolifers, sander, or do you plead the 5th like your buddy?
IMHO, refusual to denounce is to tacity approve and encourage.

reply from: Faramir

Why is it so hard for him to just speak out against it?
I don't know of any legitimate prolife organization that does not condemn this kind of violence.
Do you think he refuses to denounce it because of a personal conviction or because he's afraid to ruffle some feathers?
BTW, if anyone notices that I am asking CP instead of yoda, it is because yoda has me on ignore. He even kicked me out of his private "boxing ring" thread for prolifers.

reply from: sander

I don't think it takes an "ego" to come up with creative ways to communicate with the cowardly and evasive.
Do you support or denounce violence by prolifers, sander, or do you plead the 5th like your buddy?
IMHO, refusual to denounce is to tacity approve and encourage.
Tell you what, you answer the question if abortion is murder (no wabbling, no qualifications, just a yes or no) and I'll let you search for the answer to your question that I've all ready stated on this website.

reply from: joe

Punk and a coward.
Would you have supported physically stopping the gas chamber operators during the Jewish Holocaust when life was assured destruction. Yes or No.
It was illegal to save their lives.

reply from: joe

And you wonder why for 35 years we have lost 50 million innocent human beings. 4000 are going to be slaughtered today while you talk about your "self-righteous" attitude.

reply from: joe

Now you are willing to change history to evade the truth. You are evasive and a liar who cannot admit the inconsistency of his own convictions.

reply from: joe

Asking once again. Concernedparent "aka" Killerparent.

reply from: Faramir

HEY SANDER!
(Maybe if I shout it will get past the iggy button).
If someone is killed by a gun, is is murder?
You can only answer "yes" or "no."

reply from: yoda

Strange, isn't it? He can't make fool enough of himself under one screen name, so he feels the need to do it with two. Oh well, just one more name to put on the iggy list..........

reply from: yoda

What was that guy's name who saved all the Jews illegally? Schindler, I think, right?
Well, I guess we're supposed to vehemently criticize and attack such illegal actions, right?

reply from: Faramir

Strange, isn't it? He can't make fool enough of himself under one screen name, so he feels the need to do it with two. Oh well, just one more name to put on the iggy list..........
I wonder why he won't answer the question and continues to dodge it.
It doesn't matter WHO is asking the question.
Why doesn't yodavater denounce violent means of fighting abortion?
Should it be inferred from his silence and by his criticism of those who do denounce such violence, that he SUPPORTS it?

reply from: nancyu

I have never seen such delusion. You "won" nothing, the debate we had before is still ongoing and you ignoring my rebuttals show you the "loser".
Defending the assassins on 9/11 would make you guilty. Defending the assassins that kill unborn human life everyday makes you guilty.
Now walk away like the coward you are.
I trust the reader to determine who made the more compelling argument....
Joe did.

reply from: nancyu

That deserves a reposting, if there ever was a post deserving of such!
Ohhh Catholic American... come listen...

reply from: Faramir

That deserves a reposting, if there ever was a post deserving of such!
Ohhh Catholic American... come listen...
How do you read this, nancyu?
Is he supporting violent means?
So far I have not seen him condemn violence, and he refuses to answer a direct question about it.

reply from: joe

If someone is killed by a gun, is is murder?
You can only answer "yes" or "no."
Her example has a killer and a innocent victim. Your example contains "air" that fills your head.

reply from: joe

What was that guy's name who saved all the Jews illegally? Schindler, I think, right?
Well, I guess we're supposed to vehemently criticize and attack such illegal actions, right?
Concernedparent, Faramir and CM would have betrayed Schindler to the German officers that were "upholding the law to kill innocent lives". It was the "law" after all.

reply from: joe

Asking once again. Concernedparent "aka" Killerparent.
Answering once again: The question is too general, and I can not answer with an absolute.
BS. You are afraid to answer, hypocrite. The question is clear and not general.
Would you have saved the lives of your ancestors or look them in the eyes and let them die?

reply from: sander

What was that guy's name who saved all the Jews illegally? Schindler, I think, right?
Well, I guess we're supposed to vehemently criticize and attack such illegal actions, right?
Concernedparent, Faramir and CM would have betrayed Schindler to the German officers that were "upholding the law to kill innocent lives". It was the "law" after all.
And they wouldn't have dared called the nazis murderers!
How else could they reach those poor mis-guided, un-informed, forced to do it, souls?
The only thing worse than a proabort is a proabort disguised as a prolifer.

reply from: yoda

Apparently so. And screamed at us if we didn't agree with them!

reply from: sander

Strange, isn't it? He can't make fool enough of himself under one screen name, so he feels the need to do it with two. Oh well, just one more name to put on the iggy list..........
Two? Now he's "disgusting", not that isn't an appropriate name, for once.
He has some serious issues. I think the iggy button has sent him raging over the top!

reply from: yoda

Good...... then two iggy buttons ought to keep him there!

reply from: Faramir

Apparently so. And screamed at us if we didn't agree with them!
Saving the Jews was a good and noble cause. Please don't speak for me or attempt to read my mind.
Does this mean you then see abortion clinic violence in the same light and approve of it?

reply from: joe

Apparently so. And screamed at us if we didn't agree with them!
Saving the Jews was a good and noble cause. Please don't speak for me or attempt to read my mind.
Does this mean you then see abortion clinic violence in the same light and approve of it?
Still beating your head against the wall? These people will never see reason, and they are incapable of learning because they refuse to accept the fact that they can be wrong about anything. They will never understand your arguments, because they refuse to even consider them. There comes a time to shake the dust from your feet, for the sake of your own peace of mind....
Concernedparent in defeat....beautiful day!

reply from: joe

I assume you consider saving the unborn as evil, since you condemn force to stop it but approve of force during the Jewish Holocaust...nice to know.
Nobody advocates violence...never have or will. But the truth remains that if there were a small fraction of the pro-life movement that did what Paul Hill did, abortion would be just a bad memory.
Most assassins would not work, they would fear for their lives. Murderous women would think twice about killing and the cost to commit this killing would skyrocket to a point that it would deter a lot of women. Millions would be saved, our politicians would think twice before defending gruesome acts of abortion to avoid unsettling the population. It is just the way the world works.
But then again we can try to "show love" to the killer and wait. Another 35 years, maybe another 50 millions dead while the "pro-choice" advocates spit on their victims, while their defenders (Faramir, CP, and CM) try to win the "hearts of killers".
Truth is what I serve and the unborn is who I love.

reply from: galen

a bit o light reading...

reply from: faithman

Is that bump off three womb children then make up all kinds of excuses to justify it?

reply from: ProInformed

For all their whining about pro-lifers supposedly caring more about unborn humans than they do about already born humans, apparently their agenda of killing babies is more important that their own claimed concern for already born people.
After all, they could surely help protect abortionists by peacefully talking them out of doing abortions. They could offer change of career assistance to abortionists so they can make a living doing something respectable and non-violent. They could stop interfering with the democratic process so that the citizens could decide the legal status of abortion, thereby lessening the frustration and desperation of those few pro-lfiers who might resort to harming an abortionist. They could agree to a temporary halt to the violence (they stop killing thousands of innocent babies per day and we refrain from killing any abortionists during the same time period - just like we usually do) while everybody learns about and discusses possible non-violent solutions to the problems abortion supposedly solves.
There's a LOT that pro-aborts could do to prevent violence against abortionists/clincs, but they don't because they really don't care about protecting human life, born or unborn.
And it's not just that they feel that unborn babies' lives are not as important as the lives of already born humans, either. They also don't care about the many women who've been killed by so-called 'safe' legal abortion. How many women would have to die before they stop pretending those deaths are 'rare'? FAR FEWER male abortionists have been killed by pro-lifers than the number of women who've been killed BY abortionists. Why is it they make such a huge fuss over the rarer deaths of the abortionists but then refuse to address the deaths of the women because they say that's rare enough to ignore?
It's certainly not 'feminist' to make such a fuss about a few male abortionists being killed when so many women have been killed AND thousands of innocent babies per day are being killed. In fact it's extremely sexist the way they believe that a few male's lives are worth MUCH MORE than all those women's lives plus all those babies lives, put together!

reply from: sander

No, they sure don't care about either.
And it's to their advantage to whine and cry about violence and hypocritical to the hilt, while they are engaging in or supporting such grevious violence perpetrated towards babies who cannot defend themselves. What wretched creatures these proaborts are.


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