Home - List All Discussions

Violence does not save unborn human lives.

Extremists only safeguard abortion.

by: thecatholicamerican

Someone said most rightly here, that opposing the death of an abortion doctor is not the same as condoning abortion. This is true. Because a person thinks that is wrong to murder one person cannot logically assume the same person condones the killing of millions of others.
It is my opinion that the death of an abortion doctor is simply a method of expression for already violent minds. I believe that the death of an abortion doctor would not save even one human life and that it would at most only delay the impending abortions.
They say that the goal of such an action is to save lives. I say that it is merely an extreme means to gain attention for a cause by using extreme measures. In short, violence and killing makes for headlines and is little more than free publicity.
Breaking the murders laws will not change the abortion laws. Abortion is legal. Murder is not. Education saves lives. Murder ends lives. Abortion may be murder morally, but it is not legally murder if the mother chooses abortion willfully and employs a doctor to enact the abortion.
Abortion cannot be currently tried as murder. Anyone that would kill an abortion doctor can and should be tried for murder.
Targeting abortion doctors or clinics will not change the law but will in fact most likely cause even greater protection, both legally and physically for the abortion clinics and doctors and those women that seek abortions.
It is less likely in my opinion that there will be any progress made in overturning Roe v Wade or systematically eliminating abortion so long as there is a perception that those in the pro-life abortion movement are lawless, anarchistic, unstable and at worst violent.
Would our society change law for those who do not recognize law?
You cannot compare the movement to save the unborn to a military campaign nor can you use military tactics. You cannot compare the killing of an abortion doctor to the killing of a violent criminal. Legally and comparitively they are not the same things.
Abortion is first and foremost the act of a mother killing her own offspring. The abortion doctor is merely an instrument of that choice.
Murder is merely the violent expression of violent individuals.

reply from: yoda

The proaborts are fond of saying "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." And there's a certain wisdom to that saying, really. I agree with it as far as it goes..... it's the "implication" that we should do nothing else but "not have one" that I disagree with.
But I think that saying might be reworded to say "If you don't approve of using force to prevent abortions, then don't use force." Beyond that, what else do you have the authority to do? If you're not a law enforcement official, and you're not investigating a crime, why are you whinning on and on about something that you have no responsibility for? Do you imagine yourself to be responsible for the safety of all abortionists, just because you call yourself "prolife"? Hey, I've got news for you........ you're NOT responsible for their safety!

reply from: JohnGlenn

The proaborts are fond of saying "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." And there's a certain wisdom to that saying, really. I agree with it as far as it goes..... it's the "implication" that we should do nothing else but "not have one" that I disagree with.
But I think that saying might be reworded to say "If you don't approve of using force to prevent abortions, then don't use force." Beyond that, what else do you have the authority to do? If you're not a law enforcement official, and you're not investigating a crime, why are you whinning on and on about something that you have no responsibility for? Do you imagine yourself to be responsible for the safety of all abortionists, just because you call yourself "prolife"? Hey, I've got news for you........ you're NOT responsible for their safety!
I can think of a lot easier and less costly ways to get "free publicity" than paying with my life. Any claim that Hill did this for free publicity is foolishness. if that were they case, he had 11 more years to send articles and letters to the editors or even monthly newsletters to supporters. Hill did none of these except to once correct misconception by a Baptist Organization in 11 years.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Force? What is force? What has been advocated here is violence, murder and terrorism. The "army of god" has condoned the destruction of property, personal violence up to and including murder. Those actions are not something that you simply take or leave. These are very dangerous actions that are being discussed here and advocated. I wonder if the violent extremists pro-lifers would condone violence to defend the life of the abortion doctor. I doubt it.
I am pro-life. That means that I recognize the innate dignity of all human life and not simply human beings that I like or approve of. The command of God is to love above all things. We do not have the right to murder to defend against murder. The abortion doctor is once guilty because he does not accept that abortion is murder. The violent pro-lifer would be twice guilty since he knows that abortion is wrong and he knows that to kill an abortion doctor is murder as well.
The frustration with peaceful methods cannot erase conscience. I would hardly call the refutation of murder and terrorism whining. The likes of these violent types would not presume to convert the likes of the peaceful, but to silence them with repeated deafening noise of multiple upon multiple responses which I only skim over briefly. I could quote as much correct Christian doctrine as they could incorrect and out of context doctrine but it would be to no avail.
The person that accepts violence as a choice is no different than those that accept abortion as a choice. To accept abortion as a choice is to be pro-abortion. Others have said this themselves. To accept violence as a choice is to be pro-violence.
We cannot accept violence. We cannot condone violence.

reply from: faithman

Force? What is force? What has been advocated here is violence, murder and terrorism. The "army of god" has condoned the destruction of property, personal violence up to and including murder. Those actions are not something that you simply take or leave. These are very dangerous actions that are being discussed here and advocated. I wonder if the violent extremists pro-lifers would condone violence to defend the life of the abortion doctor. I doubt it.
I am pro-life. That means that I recognize the innate dignity of all human life and not simply human beings that I like or approve of. The command of God is to love above all things. We do not have the right to murder to defend against murder. The abortion doctor is once guilty because he does not accept that abortion is murder. The violent pro-lifer would be twice guilty since he knows that abortion is wrong and he knows that to kill an abortion doctor is murder as well.
The frustration with peaceful methods cannot erase conscience. I would hardly call the refutation of murder and terrorism whining. The likes of these violent types would not presume to convert the likes of the peaceful, but to silence them with repeated deafening noise of multiple upon multiple responses which I only skim over briefly. I could quote as much correct Christian doctrine as they could incorrect and out of context doctrine but it would be to no avail.
The person that accepts violence as a choice is no different than those that accept abortion as a choice. To accept abortion as a choice is to be pro-abortion. Others have said this themselves. To accept violence as a choice is to be pro-violence.
We cannot accept violence. We cannot condone violence.
If the abortionist is being carjacked they have the right to deffend them selves. They are womb jackers, who always kill their victims. You are pro-violence as you protect evil aggressors. Deffence is not pro-violence, it is pro-deffence. Children should be protected from pro-violence simpathizers such as yourself. Go to 30 pieces pravone, and repent in your little box of this greivious offence of simpathizing with the abortionist over the womb child. You and he are a false pro-life voice.

reply from: yoda

Who has "advocated" them, and in which post? Be specific, please, this generalization is rather like a smear tactic. Either quote someone, or admit that you are "reading things between the lines" that are not there. You have created a strawman, now put a hat on him.
Interesting....... so you rate an abortionists "morally above" a prolifer who kills him........ interesting.
Again, please quote someone who says they "accept violence as a choice". Otherwise, you are just "whining" again, about something that is not your responsibility or under your control.
BTW, what did you mean when you started that thread about Robert that was subtitled "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED"? What is the alternative to "tolerating" violence?

reply from: faithman

I find this critisism of yoda by CP totally out of line. Yoda has defended CP on several occasions. Yoda has always been fair a cross the board with his scolding of others. I have been the resipiant of much of it. He has always defend everybodies right to speak reguardless of whether he agreed with them or not. That is the only point he has tried to make about forceful defence of womb children. A point some have just plain jane ignored, and tried to paint as something it is not.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2376&enterthread=y
Read the above link please.
Who has advocated violence and terroristic activity? Those that have aligned themselves with the "army of god" or would support the actions of members there from.
Many have supported the following argument... When a person says that they are against abortion but do not think it should be illegal, are they not guilty by association with those that say abortion should be legal and a right? If you allow and condone abortion you support abortion. Does it not follow that if you allow and condone violence, that you support violence? I believe quite truly that it must be so.
Abortion is currently legal. Other forms of murder are not. You cannot use killing to speak out against a law that you find to be unethical or immoral. The abortionist is not breaking the law. The person that kills him is not preventing an illegal action but a legal one. You cannot kill, simply because you do not like the law.
To not tolerate is to reprimand, to speak out against, to verbally condem an action and to speak against it.
I say again, abortion is still legal and we do not have a right to kill to prevent it. The abortionist is currently a legal aggressor. Would you kill someone for doing something that the law says is legal? What other actions would you kill to prevent? Do you kill the woman that hired the abortionist? If a parent is forcing a teenager to have an abortion do you kill those parents? When does the violence and bloodshed stop?
We are forced and bound in a civilised to respect the law even if we do not agree with it. If we would kill and use violence as an experssion against every law and cultural action that we found immoral or detestable where would we stop? We would be little better than barbarians in some other part of the world or in another time.

reply from: faithman

The violence and bloodshed stops, when the violence and bloodshed stops. You post many mistruths. It is a fact that after the extermination of a womb child assasin, many quit the practice, and many do not enter there in, because they value their lives more than a carrier path that could get them killed. It is a fact, that when there is no clinic close, women do not choose to kill their child. It is a fact that burn out clinics can not facilitate child killing. It is a fact that some clinic have closed because they can not afford, nor can find an insurer that will cover a building that could be a target of the AOG. Just because you believe in 30 pieces pravone, does not mean that all of us do. If you want to be passifist, so be it. But don't indulge in the sin of falsehood to do it.

reply from: yoda

Thanks, Rick. I'm totally astonished that even months after I put someone on ignore and cease to refer to him, I'm still the target of his attacks. Guess some people have nothing better to do, and would prefer attacking other prolifers to trying to help the unborn.
Sad, isn't it? Let's just leave them to their nasty little games and ignore them. We've got better things to do with our time.

reply from: yoda

Well thanks for clearing that up, I was of the impression that you meant we must "stop" anyone who is inclined to use violence against an abortionist....... by forceful means. What with the all caps and exclamation mark, it looked like you were saying that we must "violently" stop violence.... and that doesn't make much sense.
Normally I wouldn't even consider it. But hypothetically, let's say we lived in the antebellum south, and we saw a slave owner beating one of his slaves (who had done nothing wrong) so severely that it looked like he would kill the slave. Would we be morally justified to intervene forcefully, physically, to prevent that? It would be perfectly legal for the slave owner to kill the slave, of course, but would we not have a moral right to protect that innocent life physically?
I'm serious about this question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. Thank you.

reply from: faithman

Thanks, Rick. I'm totally astonished that even months after I put someone on ignore and cease to refer to him, I'm still the target of his attacks. Guess some people have nothing better to do, and would prefer attacking other prolifers to trying to help the unborn.
Sad, isn't it? Let's just leave them to their nasty little games and ignore them. We've got better things to do with out time.
Just so folks do not get any misconceptions, Yoda and I do not always agree. And I would not have it any other way. We can not have any ballance to life if we hang with those that we always agree with. That is why I always take into consideration the views of others even though I may not agree. But I most assuridly reserve the right to call stupid, stupid. I also advocate a peaceful end if posible, and have provided information and materials free of charge to those who would simply ask for it. Many of whom would not agree with my opinion on many things, but that does not stop me from helping anyone be the most effective they can be in this struggle for pre-born life. I am tired of those who do nothing but run their moth, fill their pockets, and try to lord over this issue, like their opinion was law as far as the life issue is conserned. This is not a hypothetical. Children really die in very horrible ways. If you think counting beads, and worshiping waffers gets it done , then by all means getter done. But shut your passifist mouth and stay out of the way of those who believe a womb child deserves the same deffence as a born child.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Seriously, what is morally right and what is legally right are very different matters. One could have prevented the owner from beating the slave and intervened, but the owner would then have been legally right in having the man that intervened arrested. If he who had intervened had killed the owner doing the beating then that man who had intervened most certainly would have faced murder charges. Strangely enough, the owner might well have been legally justified in using lethal force to defend his "property". It is difficult to prove in any age that one may have died from anothers actions and that a violent action was necessary to defend. Its a touchy business defending a life, even if it is ones own life, much less someone elses.
I do think that the law has every right to locate and find people that advocate violence towards any human being and take whatever appropriate action may be necessary. Anyone who commits violence is liable to the law.
Unless the law changes to protect ALL LIFE, the actions that would defend life might very well degenerate into a chaos that would destroy even more life. I would prefer to live in a nation of laws rather than a nation ruled by fear and mob mentality.

reply from: RobertFerguson

and the question was one on morals
So I guess that is a YES! IT IS mroal to intervene with force.
If a person is willing to pay the cost the immoral law imposes on acting in a moral fashion then he should do this.
The rest of your post is absent of any reference to the question of morality as posed by Yoda so desrves no comment.

reply from: yoda

Of course, that's why I asked about a moral right. Which one is paramount to you the, moral rights or legal rights?
Yes, I know, but I consider that immaterial. If you tried to answer my question, I didn't see your answer, so I'll ask again: Would a person have a moral right to intervene to save the life of an innocent person, even if the person doing the harm had a legal right to do so?
And please discard all variables here, just assume that it is clear that the innocent person is being killed.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Blah blah blah blah Robert. Blah blah blah blah blah Robert. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah Robert. Have you even heard one word I've said Robert?
VIOLENCE DOES NOT CHANGE LAW IN A SOCIETY BASED ON LAWS!
The law does not care about what is moral, only what is legal. Violent actions change nothing.

reply from: RobertFerguson

And you campaign for law over morals. That says a lot about you.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Yoda, ever person must always act according to their own conscience but they will in a society of laws, even immoral laws, be subject to those laws.
Would not a change in law have been more civilised than the million plus lives that were lost in war to bring about the changes that freed the slaves in America.
For abortion to go away people must care that abortion is wrong and be told that abortion is wrong. Violent action will not do this. More people right now are upset and indignant that they have to pay taxes every year than are about upset about a million and a half abortions every year. Do you think that some violent action in a headline here or there against an abortionist will change anything?

reply from: RobertFerguson

That is obvious. thecatholicamerican said in his last post to me: "The law that does not care about what is moral, only what is legal."
Let me help out the great law debater by listing his great answers to seriosu questions. "Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah."

reply from: thecatholicamerican

It is my opinion that the death of an abortion doctor is simply a method of expression for already violent minds. I believe that the death of an abortion doctor would not save even one human life and that it would at most only delay the impending abortions.
They say that the goal of such an action is to save lives. I say that it is merely an extreme means to gain attention for a cause by using extreme measures. In short, violence and killing makes for headlines and is little more than free publicity.
Breaking the murders laws will not change the abortion laws. Abortion is legal. Murder is not. Education saves lives. Murder ends lives. Abortion may be murder morally, but it is not legally murder if the mother chooses abortion willfully and employs a doctor to enact the abortion.
Abortion cannot be currently tried as murder. Anyone that would kill an abortion doctor can and should be tried for murder.
Targeting abortion doctors or clinics will not change the law but will in fact most likely cause even greater protection, both legally and physically for the abortion clinics and doctors and those women that seek abortions.
It is less likely in my opinion that there will be any progress made in overturning Roe v Wade or systematically eliminating abortion so long as there is a perception that those in the pro-life abortion movement are lawless, anarchistic, unstable and at worst violent.
Would our society change law for those who do not recognize law?
You cannot compare the movement to save the unborn to a military campaign nor can you use military tactics. You cannot compare the killing of an abortion doctor to the killing of a violent criminal. Legally and comparitively they are not the same things.
Abortion is first and foremost the act of a mother killing her own offspring. The abortion doctor is merely an instrument of that choice.
Murder is merely the violent expression of violent individuals.
I stand by what I have said.

reply from: galen

I have to agree with TCA on this one.
mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

Paul Hill acted in accordance with his own conscience. Unlike you, Hill advocated morailty over law. Hill was not out to change laws, but to defend what your laws would not.
How many babies should your law allow to be slaughtered while we wait on your attempt to change the law? Do you really believe that such a law will ever be changed?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Could it be that violent oposition was an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery?

reply from: galen

No it just made the people who used it seem more like lunatics.... the emancipation proclamation... while it did a great good, was at the begining,political wrangling to keep the country whole. Freedom was a predicatble byproduct.
Mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

The prostitute is meerly an instrument of sex for hire, but without the prostitute one could not hire out for sex.
I wonder... if whores were killing innocent by standers would it be just to defend the innocent bystander?

reply from: JohnGlenn

For many such a cost is too high to attempt to save human life. But not for the moral Paul Hill who recognized if he were to act outside of the immoral law he would and did pay for his defending unborn children.
Paul Hill chose to act morally inspite of the great cost.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Could it be that violent oposition was an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery?
of course it influenced politics. Politics is all about kissing the ass of the vocal.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Moral lunatics... interesting theory.
A look at antiabortion movement's violence in this nation in the context of the righteous violence of other movements is illuminating in how laws have been changed.
Violence associated with a social reform movement's agitation for changing laws such as slavery is long established. Both sides of the controvercy over slavery were involved, we hear alot about John Brown but little about Eliajah Lovejoy an abolishionist editor who was killed.
"As President, Pierce was faced with increasingly violent tensions over the issue of slavery in the new western territories acquired by the U.S. following the Mexican-American War. Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in hopes of stopping the violence."
Unfortunately he was weak and would also bow to the political preasures of the tobacco, cotton farmer and other slave owners- just like a kiss ass politician does.
Carry Nation is a household name for women who beleived alcohal destroys families. Her bar bashing attacks were a great example of righteousness. Others are Douglas Dobbins for his writtings that showed community organized righteous violence in a favorable light. Albert Banks-clergyman, editor was wounded and Samuel W. Small- journalist, evangelist was beaten by those who were in favor of immoral drink. Senator Edward Carmack of Tennessee was killed for his advocacy of prohibition. These and other acts of violvence got the governemtn to look at a law change. The violence of mobster rum runners got it changed again. So, obviously violence has helped change laws.
Violence was not the first resort, but the last resort for each of these oppositions to the immoral laws. Poiticians and passificts had every opportunity to act before violence was needed to get politicians to change laws. laws were changed because these violent acts grabbed the attention of politicians.
Amply proof has been given to show that violence has helped changed laws.
But let's have you answer as to what proof can you produce that violent oposition was NOT an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery except Ad hominem against the likes of Harriet Tubman and John Brown.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Could it be that violent oposition was an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery?
Is this the best that you can do as an excuse for an answer?
If you say "No, it could not be that violent oposition was an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery", then bring some evidence of this.
Honesty demands that you document or retract.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Someone said most WRONGLY here, that condoning the right to choose [what we all know includes the death of a baby] is not the same as condoning abortion.
In both cases, we are wondering how so?

reply from: JohnGlenn

You're psychic?
You say you know what those who have long fought hard to save lives of unborn children have in their hearts better than they-
The actions taken amounted to nothing more than providing a defense for innocent people * the unborn * who were going to be killed by an unjust aggressor.
The temptation is to see this as a more complex issue; an act of hatred, revolution, vengeance, judicial punishment, etc., when, in fact, it is incredibly simple.
There were children who were going to be killed, and someone came to their defense to try and prevent their deaths.

reply from: JohnGlenn

First, it is imperative to understand the defensive nature of the actions taken by Griffin, Shannon, and Hill. A defensive action is one aimed at preventing a wrong which is going to be committed rather than punishing for a wrong already done.
Griffin clearly implied that his intention was to save children who were at risk of being killed by the abortionist. Lucid and convincing evidence of this motive is seen in the letter to his friend and in the court testimony surrounding the conversation he had with his wife soon after his arrest. Anger and thoughts of revenge for children that had been killed the day before or the week before did not drive him to destroy David Gunn. It was simply a desire to see at least one innocent child survive an intended abortion.
Shelley Shannon, the shooter of one of America's few high-profile late-term abortionists, immediately made a statement to police in which she said, "If ever there was a justifiable homicide, this would have been it." Shannon clearly expressed that her motive was to prevent more killing of innocent babies.
Paul Hill's motives are best known. In countless interviews in 1993 and 1994 he vigorously defended Griffin and Shannon before him, not for punishing abortionists for past deeds, but because of the imminent threat to innocent life that they were posing. He wrote and routinely distributed a pamphlet attesting to his belief that unborn children were deserving of the same protections afforded the born. His action was aimed at prevention.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Your belief is false.
There is a young man, the son of a mother who was inside waiting for Britton who is now alive and well. His mother called him Paul after Paul Hill, the man who defended his life. She chose not to abort.

reply from: faithman

Your belief is false.
There is a young man, the son of a mother who was inside waiting for Britton who is now alive and well. His mother called him Paul after Paul Hill, the man who defended his life. She chose not to abort.
There was a serial killer on death roe in texas when the state repealed the death penalty in the early 70's. His sentance was comuted to life. He was paroled in the late 80's early 90's. Mr. Mcduff went on a killing spree that end at least 4 young women's lives. He was tried for their murders and was exicuted for them,. Had he been exicuted the first time, his victims would not have been raped tortured and killed. Don't tell me that exicuting murderers does not save lives. That may be they way it is in lala land, but in the real world, the only way to make sure a murder does not kill again, is exicution. When we do not cut off evil from the land, inocent people suffer. It is the pasifist position that is immoral, and cheapens the lives of the inocent, by placing greater value on the unjust aggressor.

reply from: galen

Any good student of history knows that Lincoln was torn as to wether he should write the emancipation proclamation. His decision was based on what would hold the country together after the conflict, not necessarily what would give slaves freedom. he knew that eventually the slavery question would have to be answered but he did hope mightily that he would not have to be the one to answer it. If you want quick refrence material the History channel did a wonderful job this past Feb. of documenting exactly what the war and the proclamation were based on. Slavery may have been a defining issue but it most certainly was not the main one for the civil war. Lincoln also regretted the heavy losses born by both side and was burdened by the fact that ANY lives had to be lost.
Abortion and violence against the abortionist makes all the participants look like the abolitionists who had decided to incite rebellions and make fools of thier causes...( most people in America were shamed to be on any side that stirred up violence) Abortion makes the abortion seeker and those who defend this 'right' look foolish for killing innocent humans who are by themselves no real threat to society or the woman's way of life. The person's who kill the abortionist, or the women who procure them, make themselves look like fools because the put themselves as low as the people they seem to despise, and by doing it in such an outrageous manner that the general population seems to look at them as if they were mad. ( insane)
i hope I've cleared that up for you.
mary

reply from: faithman

SSSSOOOO I guess the police look like fools when they shoot bank robers, or muggers, or any bad guy who will not stop their evil aggression? All soldiers are foolish? All citizins are foolish who exersize their right to defend themselves, property and others? Dads are foolish to protect their families? Folk may try to make them look foolish, but the redal fools are those who value the life of the aggressor over the innocent.

reply from: galen

I do not value the life of the agressor over the innocent... the agressor is always foolish... I do feel that violence is NEVER the answer to the problem... in my experience it always makes things worse.
Mary

reply from: galen

BTW FM we have had this conversation ( you and I) before.... did you forget?
MAry

reply from: faithman

Then you are not very experianced. And your foolishness gets people killed. Lousiana passed a law that allowed the use of deadly force against car jackers, and car jacking went down %60. Texas pass a right to carry law, which was championed by a woman who lost her family in a restarant shooting. She had a pistol in her car and said if she wuld have had it on her, her parents would still be alive. Thugs broke into an 80 year old couples home, and were beeting the old woman to death until her husband shot them. Like I say maybe what you say is true in lala land, but in the real world evil does not stop until it is made to. Fire must be put out by fire sometimes.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Car jacking is illegal. Abortion is not illegal. You cannot use lethal force to deter a legal action regardless of what you may think of it.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Paul Hill acted immorally to defend an immoral action. Two wrongs do not make a right. Would his time not have been better spent in years of lobbying, educating, speaking out and trying to make real change as opposed to simply lowering himself to the status of a common criminal?

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Bank robbery is illegal. Abortion is not.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Since you did not address the post at all, not really. Try again.
Amply proof has been given to show that violence has helped changed laws.
But let's have you answer as to what proof can you produce that violent oposition was NOT an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery except Ad hominem against the likes of Harriet Tubman and John Brown.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Seemed to work with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
Jesus thought much differently than you, He fashioned a whip and used violence. Seemed to work for Jesus.

reply from: JohnGlenn

You have allready said that legality and morality is different. You said that one must do as his conscience leads him when it comes to morality, do you not remember this?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Which is the higher law? Morailty or legality?

reply from: JohnGlenn

You haven't shown this to be true in God's eyes.
not if God told him to defend the unborn with lethal force. It is best to obey God rather than man.

reply from: JohnGlenn

yet abortion IS immoral. You said that we should act morally when it conflicts withthe law. Paul Hill acted in a moral fashion by applying the same just equal defensive force afforded to the born. It would be immoral to discriminate.

reply from: RobertFerguson

There was a man who in defense of his wife and preborn child, shot and killed a robber of a store where his wife worked. I assume you believe (if not you can clarify) the robbery was immoral so was this man also wrong as you claim Paul Hill was to kill in defense of his preborn child and wife?
Or do these two 'wrongs' make a right?
So many proaborts mock at us to call the police about the willful killing of preborn children, knowingthe police won't do a damn thing. Here the police WOULD do something..
Shouldn't this man have just called the police?

reply from: RobertFerguson

The claim:

The truth: Even the fear of violence saves lives!!!
Truth Revealed
A prophetic bomb scare at late term baby killer George Tiller's abortuary closes mill for the day and saves a LIFE
Psalm 53:5: "There were they in great fear, where no fear was."
Prov. 28:1 Solomon says: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth."
Leviticus 26:17 "And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you."
Tiller Paranoia Closes Mill, Saves Baby
http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=332

reply from: yoda

Okay, I'm trying not to be argumentative today (change of pace?), but I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here.
What "immoral action" did he defend? His own?
Let me assume for a moment that you are simply saying that he "acted immorally" in killing those two people. Would you feel the same way if those two people had been terrorists in the act of attacking a kindergarten full of 5 year old kids?
What if the were government troops (in some other country), acting legally, about to burn a school down with a hundred kids inside?
Seriously, do you think that "legality" confers "morality" on an immoral action?
Or do you think that legality prevents one from morally protecting innocent lives?

reply from: faithman

If ranchers had the same attitude about preditors, we would all go hungry real quick. SSSSooo lets just let the mad dog abortionist devour the little lambs in the womb, because we don't have the stomack to do what is nessisary to make them stop.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

God didn't tell Paul Hill to do jack. Paul Hill is a murderer plain and simple.

reply from: faithman

Only plain and simple in your demented mind. You would makes us all a prey like alter boys to backward collar wearing wolves.

reply from: JohnGlenn

You can't claim that for sure.
There is extensive record that God has told men to kill in defense before. Telling Paul Hill to do the same would not be out of the character of God.

reply from: galen

I think I stated mu case... the fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem... not mine.
Mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

Okay, I'm trying not to be argumentative today (change of pace?), but I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here.
What "immoral action" did he defend? His own?

silly pacifist ROFLMAO

reply from: JohnGlenn

No Mary, You stated your OPINION, there was absolutely no case presented,
Where as I provided two instances where violence WAS the answer. And I could provide you with more instances.

reply from: galen

No you stated your opinion that the use is justifiable... my opinion in those instances is that it could have been resolved another way....
The facts that i presented about Lincoln are historical fact... he wrote them down... that is how we know what he was thinking.
Also fact are the letters written by numerous people who were just writing the days events out for the reader... and thier opinion of what was transpiring. Those people were not for the most part thinking about how they would sound to readers 100+ years on.
( i choose to not put down lengthy quotes that garble the mind of most readers here, you can reaserch the events on the internet just as easily as i can post them here.)
When the people who witness or experience the events of time are of the opinion that the purpotrators of an even are acting irrationally and speak of them as if they were mad, that leads the reader to conclude that they did not condone said behaviour.
Mary
Ghandi said, that before you go seeking revenge you should dig two graves... one for the person you seek for vengance and one for yourself.
Pagan adage... Beware if you exact and evil deed on others for it will come back to you threefold.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Paul Hill acted immorally to prevent an immoral action.

reply from: faithman

You keep talking about revenge, which no one here is advocating. We are talking about deffence. If it is right, and moral to defend a born child, which 4000 years of western culture says it is, then it is right and justifiable to defend the womb child. Quit trying to change what is being said to suit your passifist opinion. No one has advocated revenge killing on this forum. It is dishonest to continue to imply such. Is it right to defend inocent life? If not, then you must also protest all police departments, military units, and the right of all citizens to defend themselves against evil agression. That is what is being stated, not revenge.

reply from: yoda

Okay, that's a much clearer statement.
Let's stipulate that you are correct for a moment........ that being the case, what obligation does that place on you?
Are you guilty of anything because of what he did? Do you have any obligation to disown him or his actions? If so, why?

reply from: galen

Sorry FM, but when you kill anyone in defense of another it is immoral... no matter how much it is sugarcoated... and many of the activists who kill the physicians who preform abortions and those who kill mothers who have had them are not doing so solely for the purpose of prevention. they are also seeking to avenge the child / children who were killed... and so it goes on and on and on.
yes I am a pacifist. I am also someone who saw firsthand what violence of any kind does to families.
mary

reply from: yoda

I have a hard time with absolute statements like that. If there is no way other than the use of deadly force to stop someone from killing innocent children, I can't see classifying that as "immoral". Killing is always a last resort, but when it's either the killer of his innocent victims that is going to die, it makes no sense to me to say it's immoral to protect the innocent with force. IMO, that's what "heroes" do. But of course, that's just my personal opinion.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Now that is much different than you first claim, isn't it?
Yet you did not address the reply
There was a man who in defense of his wife and preborn child, shot and killed a robber of a store where his wife worked. I assume you believe (if not you can clarify) the robbery was immoral so was this man also wrong as you claim Paul Hill was to kill in defense of his preborn child and wife?
Or do these two 'wrongs' make a right?
So many proaborts mock at us to call the police about the willful killing of preborn children, knowingthe police won't do a damn thing. Here the police WOULD do something..
Shouldn't this man have just called the police?

reply from: JohnGlenn

actually, I have stated the Bible's view.
my opinion in those instances is that it could have been resolved another way.....
Yes, I know your OPINION. However, youhave not offered any othe raltenatives to the defensive violence by Paul Hill that stopped the killing of 32 humans inside the building that day.
In fact you did not address the post at all, not really. Try again.
Amply proof has been given to show that violence has helped changed laws.
But let's have you answer as to what proof can you produce that violent oposition was NOT an influencing factor in changing the law on slavery except Ad hominem against the likes of Harriet Tubman and John Brown.

reply from: RobertFerguson

There was a man who in defense of his wife and preborn child, shot and killed a robber of a store where his wife worked.
You claim this defensive killing was immoral? Prove it. Or all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion.
The police did not arrest the man.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I have a hard time with absolute statements like that. If there is no way other than the use of deadly force to stop someone from killing innocent children, I can't see classifying that as "immoral". Killing is always a last resort, but when it's either the killer of his innocent victims that is going to die, it makes no sense to me to say it's immoral to protect the innocent with force. IMO, that's what "heroes" do. But of course, that's just my personal opinion.
I too have a hard time when someone says that all killing is immoral. Do you remember the man who defended his wife when he saw her being robbed at her employ? Aren't somethings like this, just the natural consequences of the immoral act of robbing with a gun?

reply from: JohnGlenn

I have a hard time with absolute statements like that. If there is no way other than the use of deadly force to stop someone from killing innocent children, I can't see classifying that as "immoral". Killing is always a last resort, but when it's either the killer of his innocent victims that is going to die, it makes no sense to me to say it's immoral to protect the innocent with force. IMO, that's what "heroes" do. But of course, that's just my personal opinion.
I too have a hard time when someone says that all killing is immoral. Do you remember the man who defended his wife when he saw her being robbed at her employ? Aren't somethings like this, just the natural consequences of the immoral act of robbing with a gun?
Just like the "natural consequences" of baby killing is the risk of death. Bloodshed begets bloodshed.

reply from: yoda

I don't recall that specific incident, but it seems to fit the pattern of "last resort" that I'm talking about. Taking a human life is always a very serious, very sad thing, but I do believe there are times when as a "last resort" it is preferable to doing nothing to stop a fatal attack on innocent people. I know I'd sure be grateful if I were the innocent victim, and I seriously doubt that any here would admonish or rebuke anyone who saved their lives that way. I imagine it would be like the "foxhole conversion" where the atheist gets religion when his life is threatened.

reply from: RobertFerguson

FM, These type have to change and lie about what is being said. It is the only way to try and justify their opinion that violence never solves anything. Violence has solved a multitude of things. The list is un-numberable.
There is immoral violence, and then there is moral violence.
It was violence that destroyed Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Only violence. Not talk. Not negotiations. Not good will.
Moses didn't lecture the Egyptian taskmaster about "the cycle of violence" or give him a lesson on "rage management."
Moses knows that by the time he will complete his lecture the Hebrew might be dead.
Moses is aware that at times, though a difficult, choice, violence is a moral.
The use of moral violence, when all other attempts fail, righteous violence is the only response to immoral violence.
It is violence used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering and hurting innocent people.
If someone had killed the hijackers of 9/11 before they commandeered the planes, thousands of lives would have been saved.
Moral violence saves the lives of the innocent.
If we never engage in moral violence, it is as certain as anything in life can be that immoral violence will rule the world.
Prohibiting the moral killing of abortionists guarantees the immoral killing by abortionists.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I don't recall that specific incident, but it seems to fit the pattern of "last resort" that I'm talking about. Taking a human life is always a very serious, very sad thing, but I do believe there are times when as a "last resort" it is preferable to doing nothing to stop a fatal attack on innocent people. I know I'd sure be grateful if I were the innocent victim, and I seriously doubt that any here would admonish or rebuke anyone who saved their lives that way. I imagine it would be like the "foxhole conversion" where the atheist gets religion when his life is threatened.
I searched for it in our home forum, but being a basic member I am limited to time of back searches. It was in tx. Knowing me, I put it under "activism", but I still could not fidn the article.

reply from: yoda

Well this discussion is about values and moral opinions, so we're probably not going to change anyone's mind. I've seen too much testosterone driven violence in my life to believe that it can be dealt with by communication alone, I know often times nothing short of stronger force can stop it. And I'm not willing to let innocent people suffer from that violence when there's something I can do to stop it, regardless of how immoral anyone thinks it is to protect the weak and the innocent. That's my moral opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

reply from: galen

Adolf Hitler, History could have changed had the German people not listened to him when the Nazi party first started... if they had laughed at what he was saying or otherwise disregarded his rantings they would have been on a radically diffrent course... read Eric Ericsson, on the psychology of the Germans at that time in History.
Police in many other nations do not resort to violence in order to bring down robbers Etc. look at England for many good exampls of thier gun laws. the one time they broke those rules during the recent terrorist bombings it resulted in only innocent lives being taken by the police. All the terror suspects were taken by non violent methods.
So far you have only qoted people other than Christ from the Bible, REV. Isahia etc. NO ONe has ever quoted Christ as saying that violence was OK. That was the one mistake that the Jews made when they thought of thier Messiah. they felt he would be a great military ruler to smite the Romans, they were wrong and missed the greatest thinker of thier age and His message because of it.
As far as the man who shot the robber... well that was his discision. he will live with it for the rest of eternity. our law says it was justifiable...* shrug* i myself could not live with that choice had it been me. There in lies our diffrences... I have stated my opinion and it has been nothing but that. i never said that YOu had to agree with it but I did put out a diffrent point of view, wich I gave historical facts as were necessary to back it up. However it does seem to me that you seem to view your opinions as facts also... I do not see them that way.
mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

For a guy without an agenda, you sure focus on one thing alot.

reply from: Banned Member

Hmmmm... not the same person? I'm not the same person? I am the same person I always was. I am a Catholic American.

reply from: Banned Member

Not the same person am I 4given? Not the same? Am I not Catholic? Am I not American? Look at the dates on these posts!
12/04/2006

reply from: 4given

Oh my. I won't openly speculate as to why you may have posted differently. I haven't read these posts as of yet. I am curious to see how much has changed here.

reply from: 4given

Lest I forget Gethsemane. This hymn is on my heart.
You have changed. Perhaps your stance has not, but you are not the same person I have known. Sure I didn't engage you until a year or more after these posts.

reply from: Teresa18

Nothing has changed.
I have not been here in a while, but I've been skimming and reading through some of the posts. You do seem like you have changed, Augustine. Your focus and posts used to be on the unborn. They were well written, passionate defenses of the unborn right to life. Now, it seems as though your focus is on a small band of extremists who support the killing of abortion doctors. I'm not saying I support killing abortionists - I don't. I am saying that it seems ridiculous to focus on a small group of extremists and the murder of abortionists when abortionists are killing 4,000 unborn children daily across the US. In almost a year we have one dead abortion doctor to over 1 million dead unborn children. That's where the focus needs to be.

reply from: Banned Member

Nothing has changed.
I have not been here in a while, but I've been skimming and reading through some of the posts. You do seem like you have changed, Augustine. Your focus and posts used to be on the unborn. They were well written, passionate defenses of the unborn right to life. Now, it seems as though your focus is on a small band of extremists who support the killing of abortion doctors. I'm not saying I support killing abortionists - I don't. I am saying that it seems ridiculous to focus on a small group of extremists and the murder of abortionists when abortionists are killing 4,000 unborn children daily across the US. In almost a year we have one dead abortion doctor to over 1 million dead unborn children. That's where the focus needs to be.
I save my best posts for my own page now. There is little sense in posting them here for a handful of Army of God supporters.

reply from: 4given

Because women contemplating abortion will be scouring facebook looking for your thoughts, right? Be true.

reply from: 4given

Did you change your screen name after your confirmation?

reply from: Banned Member

I work with other pro-lifers for a common good... for the of the unborn and for the good of women and mothers. I work with people like Lila Rose and Abby Johnson. People like Lila and Abby, Nancy and Rick have thrown under the bus because they don't support shooting abortion doctors. They, like me, won't get on the Scott Roeder bandwagon. There are thousands of people every day who give their time for the unborn who do not support shooting abortion doctors. I will not have them maligned by a small number of crackpots who are terrorists by any definition.

reply from: 4given

Why waste your time here then? Are you only here to attack those in whom you disagree? There are no members of the AOG that post here.

reply from: 4given

Just how are you working with Lila or Abby?! And please don't use their names together. I respect Lila Rose.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: 4given
Just how are you working with Lila or Abby?!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Good question.
Perhaps he poses as a pregnant 15-year-old girl with a much older boyfriend.

reply from: Banned Member

Just how are you working with Lila or Abby?! And please don't use their names together. I respect Lila Rose.
And you don't respect Abby? No you don't because Rick and Nancy don't. Don't be so easily led. Don't be a follower.
Rick is on the AOG website. Nancy is not far from being a Hero of the Faith.
I still have a message and a voice and people respect that. I won't be silent. I don't have a load of time for two pages however. I post when I can.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Talkin' ain't doin'
It sure as hell isn't anything like "working."

reply from: 4given

Not true. Has she openly repented for her involvement in the deaths of innocent children and the pain that those women(and men) will likely endure? Is it true she was facing termination prior to her sudden "conversion"? Is it true she is being paid to speak about the horrors of abortion? I know you refer to her as "Abby, my friend". Just how did she earn that title? Are you somehow trying to advance your own agenda (respect and attention in the "pro-life" community), by clinging on to whomever you can? These aren't accusations. I am sincere in my questions here. I have never been a "follower" btw.

reply from: 4given

"Pro-life" is not a social club.

reply from: 4given

Augustine, I think I have said all that I have to for now. I am not interested in a negative exchange. I am willing to read a post of yours in defense of the unborn, but no more of the negative. Hope you can move on, grow and be true. Blessed day.

reply from: B0zo

I don't think AOG has actual "members," do they?
But there ARE posters here in alignment with AOG philosophy, and they refuse to condemn AOG.

reply from: B0zo

Just how are you working with Lila or Abby?! And please don't use their names together. I respect Lila Rose.
Can you tell me why Abby Johnson is not worthy of respect?

reply from: 4given

I posted my questions in an earlier post. Can you answer any of them? (see my response to Augustine)

reply from: B0zo

I posted my questions in an earlier post. Can you answer any of them? (see my response to Augustine)
I know nothing about this person except a blurb I found by doing a search. It seems she's converted to pro-life because of an ultrasound experience.
If she's now being paid to do prolife work, she's no different than many others involved in the prolife movement, and I don't think we can fault her for that. I don't know about any problems she had at PP.
It seems to me we ought to give her the benefit of any doubt, and support what she's doing.

reply from: B0zo

And if nancyu and faithman are up to their monkeybusiness of defaming her and other prolifers, then shame on them.
I have watched them for over two years demean and degrade a successful pro-life advocate, and it doesn't surprise me if they are doing the same to her, as Augustine alluded to.

reply from: 4given

I tend to do that. They aren't the only ones that have stated those things though. Sure she should be reimbursed for some traveling expenses if asked to speak. I was told she is making a living off of her story. I don't know if that is true or not.

reply from: B0zo

I tend to do that. They aren't the only ones that have stated those things though. Sure she should be reimbursed for some traveling expenses if asked to speak. I was told she is making a living off of her story. I don't know if that is true or not.
The owners of this site are well-paid for their pro-life work. Priests for Life has a huge budget and staff of paid employees. If she's making a living off her story, is it wrong?

reply from: 4given

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/03/planned-parenthood-director-discovers-abortion
Your thoughts?

reply from: 4given

More troubling is that she was a mother herself.. Not knowing for sure that she understood basic development, but I am guessing she had the books "What To Expect When You Are Expecting" for one.. She has innocent blood on her hands. I know God forgives that and people change, but I am not sure with what I have read that she is there yet. Maybe say a prayer for her. I was also told she is a "pro-life with exceptions" person. Listing "rape" as an exception. I know if she was so far into it, that she was supporting a family by a high paying job that included the killing of preborn children.. it may take some time. People don't change overnight typically.

reply from: B0zo

Wasn't that article written by an abortion advocate?
I don't know enough about this to make any judgement, except that I give the benefit of the doubt until there is a good reason to believe otherwise.

reply from: Shenanigans

Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
If he can change, anyone can.

reply from: 4given

True. I have prayed for those that I disagree with. God can change anyone. I hope her "conversion" was sincere.

reply from: 4given

I read a disturbing post from you yesterday Shenanigans.. to another poster in regards to alcohol. You knew this person lost a loved one, yet chose to prove a point by somehow using that to hurt him further? What? Why? I can't find it, and looked earlier. Insanity.. Then you also threatened to use what personal information you supposedly had to further hurt him. I think I read "destroy". I can't find where I read it, but can tell you I was so upset I had to log off. There are people behind these icons. When one shares personal hurt or other, it is because they are either trusting or vulnerable. I can't imagine what you thought you would gain from bringing up his loved one's death. Kindly direct me to that thread.

reply from: Banned Member

Total load of crap!

reply from: B0zo

No, it was not like this, and it is part of a "flame war," taken out of context.
She did not bring up anyone's death that she knew about at the time she made the post, but was speculating.
But nobody on this forum has been more cruel and vindictive than your friends nancyu and faithman, and you turn a blind eye to their abusiveness.
It's frustrating that you would make an effort to point out this one instance, but remain silent about two posters who viciously attack "the killer of three" on a regular basis--hundreds of times, as well as the personal attacks they make on others, including fellow pro-lifers. Should they also be told there is a person behind the icon? Maybe you could tell them best, since you are a friend.

reply from: nancyu

Total load of crap!
Testy!

reply from: nancyu

A dream....
Bozo is in a dark alley being violently assaulted, and his attacker is attempting to dismember him. Bozo is screaming and praying to Jesus, the Saints and Mother Mary to send him a rescuer to deliver him from this violent and merciless attack.
Bozo is relieved when he sees a passerby and sends a prayer of thanks to the Lord. "Thank you Lord! You have answered my prayer for help!"
But to his dismay the passerby does just that, he simply passes by.
Sadly, as the dream goes, Bozo does not survive the attack. He arrives at the Pearly Gates and asks "Why Lord, why didn't you answer my prayer for help?"
In a heavenly voice comes the reply, "I did answer your prayer - I sent Augustine. And wait til you hear the poem he wrote for you!"

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/user/jcr4runner#p/a/u/2/b0b1T8_L7dI

reply from: Shenanigans

I tell you what I told him.
If you kick a sleeping dog and it bites you, who's fault is it?
Its one thing for you to pull me up on what I replied with, but if you're going to do that, you need to also address the many, many attacks made by all members in sundry on this board towards others.
To single me out for a few fiesty posts when there are others worse than mine, and more frequent than mine makes you look like a hypocrit, or at the very least, the leader of Ass' fan club.
Its not very becoming of you.

reply from: nancyu

This is a very good question. Whose logic are we using?

reply from: B0zo

This is a very good question. Whose logic are we using?
Probably the logic of a sleeping dog that is kicked.

reply from: B0zo

So I'm in Heaven.
Why should I complain?
And if the poem helped get me there, then I'm grateful to the poet.

reply from: nancyu

So I'm in Heaven.
Why should I complain?
And if the poem helped get me there, then I'm grateful to the poet.
Now I see how your mind works. It's good to kill someone if they go to heaven? Who knows, maybe Tiller repented at the last moment and he's there, too.
Sad though, it's hard to say what becomes of you; the dream ended while you were in line at the gate.

reply from: Shenanigans

This is a very good question. Whose logic are we using?
Well, for one I'd hope like heck that there aren't people stupid or cruel enough to kick a sleeping dog.

reply from: 4given

I can see how you would think that. It is a sensitive subject and maybe because I myself lost a sister to a drunk driver very recently, I felt the pain in those remarks. It is true that I haven't been reading or posting in some time, so I don't know the current situation or relationship between posters. It surprised me. You did. The leader? I founded it. I am the first one to admit that I am an ass. I put too much faith in people's words. I am trusting and confused at times. I can't read sarcasm very well and my sense of humor is lost on most people. That may make me an ass, but at most I am sincere. I only pointed it out for the above reasons. I am late to the show, but there is nothing so low as to bring up the death of another to satisfy some revenge over what was said. That is what I saw.

reply from: 4given

Oh dear. Ask faithman how many conversations we have had about that. I have not been silent.

reply from: B0zo

Oh dear. Ask faithman how many conversations we have had about that. I have not been silent.
I haven't seen them, but good for you if you had those conversations and tried.

reply from: B0zo

I can see how you would think that. It is a sensitive subject and maybe because I myself lost a sister to a drunk driver very recently, I felt the pain in those remarks. It is true that I haven't been reading or posting in some time, so I don't know the current situation or relationship between posters. It surprised me. You did. The leader? I founded it. I am the first one to admit that I am an ass. I put too much faith in people's words. I am trusting and confused at times. I can't read sarcasm very well and my sense of humor is lost on most people. That may make me an ass, but at most I am sincere. I only pointed it out for the above reasons. I am late to the show, but there is nothing so low as to bring up the death of another to satisfy some revenge over what was said. That is what I saw.
Just to help out a little--and hopefully not make things worse--she used the word "ass" as an abbrievation of the poster "asschapper."
In that post she was speculating why he was so opposed to alcohol, and speculated he might have lost someone because of a drunk driver, (among other reasons) but was not referring to any particular circumstance in his life, and without knowledge there was such an occurrence.
She wasn't trying to hurt him with a personal tragedy.
Have you heard the joke about the jump rope?

reply from: 4given

No. I have jumped the gun.. but not the rope. I have no idea what you are talking about.

reply from: 4given

faithman, BOzo wants proof that I have chatted with you in regard to how you speak to CM..
(Weird statement of the day)

reply from: B0zo

No. I have jumped the gun.. but not the rope. I have no idea what you are talking about.
skip it

reply from: B0zo

I haven't asked for proof.
I believe you.

reply from: Shenanigans

I didn't call you an Ass. I was expressing that you looked to be a member of "asschapper's/leftnemesis'" fan club. I shortened his name to "Ass".
Which I find amusing, as ass = donkey. Of course, in America, its somehow become slang for "bottom".
The correct term is "arse" for bottom.

reply from: B0zo

4given, the joke has now been completely told, with the punchline delivered in a separate post.
Did you think it was funny?

reply from: 4given

No. But thanks for trying. I am more focused on the fact that someone photgraphed a comment and posted it (my baby) on a public forum. That is troubling. And creepy.

reply from: B0zo

No. But thanks for trying. I am more focused on the fact that someone photgraphed a comment and posted it (my baby) on a public forum. That is troubling. And creepy.
I saw that, but there was nothing at all recognizable, and he was thoughtful enough to block out the name.
Anyway, you did get the joke then? Just wasn't funny?

reply from: 4given

I didn't think so. Graduation was tonight.. Thanks for trying anyway.

reply from: nancyu

I haven't asked for proof.
I believe you.
Just to add to 4given's defense, I remember a time when I proposed an attack on CM, and she urged me to pray.
She is a good person, (much better person than I) and absolutely does not deserve to be attacked the way you and Augustine seem to enjoy.
But since she hasn't killed any children I suppose you feel attacking her is A - okay?

reply from: B0zo

I haven't asked for proof.
I believe you.
Just to add to 4given's defense, I remember a time when I proposed an attack on CM, and she urged me to pray.
She is a good person, (much better person than I) and absolutely does not deserve to be attacked the way you and Augustine seem to enjoy.
But since she hasn't killed any children I suppose you feel attacking her is A - okay?
I haven't attacked her. I've been very civil towards her.
But you actually conspired to attack someone? And a pro-lifer who has sacrificed much to save babies at clinics, instead of just talking about it online, of all people?
Wow, you're really hardcore.
I wonder if you pro-violence types think it would be "justifiable defense" to shoot those "phony" prolifers you don't like.

reply from: nancyu

I haven't asked for proof.
I believe you.
Just to add to 4given's defense, I remember a time when I proposed an attack on CM, and she urged me to pray.
She is a good person, (much better person than I) and absolutely does not deserve to be attacked the way you and Augustine seem to enjoy.
But since she hasn't killed any children I suppose you feel attacking her is A - okay?
I haven't attacked her. I've been very civil towards her.
But you actually conspired to attack someone? And a pro-lifer who has sacrificed much to save babies at clinics, instead of just talking about it online, of all people?
Wow, you're really hardcore.
I wonder if you pro-violence types think it would be "justifiable defense" to shoot those "phony" prolifers you don't like.
I didn't mean that kind of attack, silly. I meant an "attack" with words on the forum. (Like you didn't know what I meant )
I don't even remember what it was about, but it was when I first started posting here, and I was questioning cm's position on personhood and she was dodging my questions. I vaguely remember saying I was going to post such and such, and told 4given to feel free to join in. She told me to pray.

reply from: B0zo

No, I wasn't saying that you would physically attack her.
It's strange that you show no respect or admiration for the hundreds of babies she's helped save, turn a blind eye towards that, and focus only on the political difference, while also enjoying rubbing in the sins of her past.
But I do wonder if you can justify blowing the brains out of an abortionist, why you could not also justify doing the same to an escort, a politician, or a pro-lifer who opposes violence and gets in your way.

reply from: Banned Member

No. But thanks for trying. I am more focused on the fact that someone photgraphed a comment and posted it (my baby) on a public forum. That is troubling. And creepy.
"I have to confess that I did not for a moment feel the pain over what the active would have to endure because of Roeder's action. I had an hour where I was trembling, thankful and excited that he (Tiller) was gone- Who (in the "pro-life movement") wasn't excited about the idea that his hands would never commit such a sickening atrocity again? To condone the killing of any innocent being, means that we condone the killing of them all." -4given


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