Home - List All Discussions

It Would Not be Moral

A Response to Advocates of Violence

by: dignitarian

Several very prolific contributors to this forum appear to be attempting to convince others that killing abortion providers is the right thing to do. They won't exactly say this is what they desire, but they nevertheless won't deny it either. My point of this posting is to provide some reflection of my thoughts in this regard.
This is a fact: According to our laws, to kill an abortion provider is an act of murder.
This is also a fact: To do so is not only a denial of a single law, but it is also a denial of the greater system of law itself.
Permit me to ask. If it is okay to kill the abortion doctor, then why not his assistant? And if it is okay to kill his assistant, then why not the bookkeeper? And what about the police officer who is duty bound to honor our system of law, mustn't he be killed too in the event he might attempt to kill the assailants while performing his duty to protect some of these people? Heck, for that matter, what about an abortion provider who happened to be pregnant herself? And what about the means to carry out such attacks, if one is willing to break the laws against murder, would it not be necessary to break many others along the way to carry out such acts?
The point is, when you materially attack so essential a law of a given society, you end up attacking the entire system of law itself. In doing so, you end up attacking a nation itself. This is what is called war.
And here is yet another fact: As war can be guided by moral rules, any given war is either moral or it is immoral. Immoral war does not follow rules of morality. However, a moral war must be grounded upon a universal sense of morality that suggests at least three conditions be necessary.
1. All other means have been exhausted.
2. There must be a reasonable chance of success.
3. It must not produce an even greater evil.
To some particular posters in this forum, I would emphatically suggest that none of these conditions would be met in the event one desired to make war against the United States of America to defeat legalized abortion.
For one, I know our abortion laws are wrong, but I also happen to know that our greater system of law is good, and it must not be destroyed.
Regards,
Dignitarian

reply from: faithman

Number one it is the government that has declared war on the womb child 2] 34 years of failure takes care of your first point pretty well. 3] Success has already been seen in the fact that most burn out clinics do not reopen, dead docters can't kill babies any more, and many quit killing because they don't want to wear a flack jacket to work. I was at an ACOG convention and personally heard an ex abortionist say he quit the trade because he was affraid of dying. 4] How in the world can it be called a greater evil to take out a mass murderer? Lets see, 1 life verses hundreds posibly thousands. You do the math. Our founding documents state that if a government becomes despotic, that we not only have the right, but the duty to over throw it, or haven't you read the declaration of independance? If our system can be used to kill millions who's only crime is they are not wanted, how in the world can you call it good? I am not calling for a destruction of the system, but a return to it. The proaborts have already taken up arms to kill our preborn fellow Americans. I guaranty that our fore fathers would have already taken up arms and said this is where it ends one way or another.

reply from: bradensmommy

I agree. Killing abortion docs won't solve anything. Killing murderers won't solve anything. People (who claim to be Christian) who advocate killing others are not very Christian at all to me. Pro-lifers love life. If someone hurts us we have the right to protect ourselves which is very different than going out and killing someone for no good reason. Yeah, abortion docs are not good people in my opinion but neither are a few people I can't stand *and I STILL have you on iggy NONfaithman so keep on responding to air*but I don't have the right to go out and shoot them because I hate them.

reply from: yathoughtso

i agree completly. if you do things like that it makes you as bad as they are.

reply from: JohnGlenn

This claim shows the error in thinking of the prolifer in name only who does not see the difference defedning another makes. It reminds me of the fool who made this same claim to this man:
Once a man was walking along a beach. The sun was shining and it was a beautiful day. Off in the distance he could see a person going back and forth between the surf's edge and and the beach. Back and forth this person went. As the man approached he could see that there were hundreds of starfish stranded on the sand as the result of the natural action of the tide.
The man was stuck by the the apparent futility of the task. There were far too many starfish. Many of them were sure to perish. As he approached the person continued the task of picking up starfish one by one and throwing them into the surf.
As he came up to the person he said, "You must be crazy. There are thousands of miles of beach covered with starfish. You can't possibly make a difference."
The person looked at the man. He then stooped down and pick up one more starfish and threw it back into the ocean. He turned back to the man and said, "It sure made a difference to that one!"

reply from: JohnGlenn

Lots of talk about laws in a thread about NOT being moral.
The irony

reply from: faithman

I agree. Killing abortion docs won't solve anything. Killing murderers won't solve anything. People (who claim to be Christian) who advocate killing others are not very Christian at all to me. Pro-lifers love life. If someone hurts us we have the right to protect ourselves which is very different than going out and killing someone for no good reason. Yeah, abortion docs are not good people in my opinion but neither are a few people I can't stand *and I STILL have you on iggy NONfaithman so keep on responding to air*but I don't have the right to go out and shoot them because I hate them.
Can dead abortionist still kill babies? as far as them killing babies, problem solved. As I have stated numerous times, it is also legal in all 50 states to protect others from harm as well as yourself. To say it is wrong to deffend the pre-born is the howl of a pro-abort wolf, no matter how much pro-life wool you use to cover it up. So using defensive action is no good reason? So we should all just lay down and let evil have it's way?

reply from: faithman

So the police are as bad as the bank rober they stop? Fathers are as bad as the evil agressor they stop from harming their family? The abortionist is to be considered over the womb child because their mass murder is legal? So if I take an oath to defend the contitution of the united states from all enemies, I am as evil as the one who would destroy it if I fulfill my comitment and stop them? Very interesting illogic there sis. I know now why the bible says the woman was decieved.

reply from: faithman

So the police are as bad as the bank rober they stop? Fathers are as bad as the evil agressor they stop from harming their family? The abortionist is to be considered over the womb child because their mass murder is legal? So if I take an oath to defend the contitution of the united states from all enemies, I am as evil as the one who would destroy it if I fulfill my comitment and stop them? Very interesting illogic there sis. I know now why the bible says the woman was decieved.
You are obviously so deluded as to be more worthy of my pity than my contempt.

And you are obviously an ape man pro-abort pretending to be pro-life who needs to be exposed for the pro-abortionist that you are.

reply from: yoda

First let me say that I appreciate your rational, calm approach to this subject. That's something that's been sorely missing in this debate from the "non-violence" side.
As to your second sentence, I think it's risky to make assumptions about what people mean but "don't say". I never hesitate to ask someone if they mean "so and so", but that's not as risky as making assumptions without having it in black and white.
I notice the transition in your questions from "if it's okay" to "why not the", and "mustn't he be killed too", and then to "would it not be necessary". Simply declining to denounce, or even praising someone's character is not precisely the same as saying their actions were "okay". And the imperative "mustn't" does not necessarily follow either one. No set of dominoes exist in this scenario that links the "approval" to the "imperative", IMO.
Interesting theory. I'm not sure how one measures such things as "an even greater evil", but I think that all wars produce lots of death and blood and gore, which for some is a "greater evil" no matter what the reason for the war.
I guess my measuring stick for justifying a war is to be convinced that there is a clear aggressor, and that the country being attacked is not guilty of sufficient provocation to justify the aggression. After that threshold is met, all bets are off.
So, in the "abortion wars", have all other means been exhausted, after 34 years? Yeah, probably so. Is there a reasonable chance of success? Sure, our society seems about evenly divided. Does it produce an even greater evil? I honestly don't know of anything that comes even close to being as evil as killing little babies....... to me, that's just the ultimate evil....

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, yathoughtso. Is this your first time here?

reply from: dignitarian

Well, I see some progress has been made in that we all now very clearly understand one another in this regard.
But permit me to ask still yet one more question for those advocating violence. When you are done with killing all possible abortion providers, but cases of abortion still persist whereby the killing of the unborn child is done entirely by the swallowing of a pill. What do you do then? Kill the inventor of this pill? Do you kill those involved in its manufacture? Do you also kill those who sell it, transport it, and eventually provide it to the expectant mother?
What do you do then? Yes indeed "William Roper", is there yet still more of law to be destroyed?
The reason the above questions sound ridiculous, is because this idea of killing others is wrong. The root cause of abortion is not the few perverse providers of it. Rather the root cause of abortion is deeply imbedded in the culture all around us. As a culture, we have judged the worth of a human being in an entirely materialistic sense simply because we deny human identity in its deeper sense. Some call it sin, others call it arrogance. Whatever you want to call it, it won't be stopped by killing others.
Regards,
Dignitarian

reply from: faithman

Your exstrapulations, and hypotheticals, may do well to stroke the ego of your intelectualism, and take away from the real issue at hand. The real issue is that children are this very day dying a horrible death by our tolorance, and engagement in worthless debate. Who cares who can twist words into the most propfound of statements when inocent children die? What would we do to the mother who kills her toddeler with a bottle of arsnic laddened milk? What is the difference in a woman taking a pill to kill her womb child? when a mass murderer is put to death, it most assuredly stops him from ever killing again. When an abortionist is stricken by severe led poisioning, they most assuredly will not kill anymore babies. YOur statment are not only void of logic, they are wrong.

reply from: yoda

By the tenor of their posts. Dignitarian, unlike you, posts calmly and rationally, with respect for those he addresses.

reply from: faithman

The difference is that the latter would be legal, and while you have a legal right to prevent the former, and the law demands legal recompense for such actions, you have no right to resort to any illegal interferance to prevent the latter and the law currently recognizes her presumed "right" to do so. Dig has made it clear that he is as outraged as anyone about this current state of affairs, and is strongly opposed to legal abortion on demand, seemingly agrreing with you and I that such laws are inhumane. He and I seem to differ from you and your ilk in that we are capable of seeing "the big picture," and realize the full implications of utilizing terrorism, violence, and vigilantism as means to prevent abortions.
It seems ridiculous to present yourself as morally superior based on your opposition to the killing of one class of human being while condemning those with whom you disagree and condoning disregard of the law to the point of defending the act of murder. Morality is generally associated with respect for, and obedience to the law. Legal prohibitions exist as a deyterrant to those who convince themselves that their own personal convictions and desires take precedent over what society,as a whole, dictates is "acceptable" or not. You seem unable to understand that without law, we have anarchy, and unless we are all bound equally by the law, it simply does not work. If acceptions are made to accomodate your beliefs, why should they not be made to accomodate the beliefs of others? Once more I ask, if PETA members believe it is "murder" to slaughter animals, are they justified in killing people to prevent what they view as murder? Obviously the law must be applied equally to all, and must be upheld by the authorities sworn to do so for the "greater good" of all humanity. PETA may one day succeed in having legal protection established to preserve the lives of animals, but they must obey the law in doing so. Likewise, it is my hope (and I am personally convinced we are making some progress and that it is just "a matter of time") that abortion on demand will become a thing of the past, but we, like everyone else, must obey the law in all our efforts, despite the strength of our convictions and belief in the justice of our cause.
Spoken like a true torry. Thank God our founders did not share your sentament, or there would never have been a USA.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Your question discredits your statement that you now understand.
1 ]Who ever said killing all abortion providers was the goal? Some abortion committers have quit killing. Since these baby killers are no longer an imminent threat- there would be no moral reason for anyone other than the government to kill them in seeking justice.
2] You think those who commit abortions by other than surgical means are no less abortion "providers"?
Obviously, your statement that you understand is spacious at best.

reply from: MattG

Robert killing as a goal is precisely the antithesis of the Pro-life, Right to Life ethic. So whoever would suggest that killing any APs is a practice to be followed is neither Pro-life, Right to Life nor morally ethical.
Sadly, abortion is a procedure that the law allows for any or no reason and must only be chosen by women, who may be pregnant; there are cases when women have received abortions who were not in-fact pregnant. The fee, I understand, was the same.
I don't think ex-post facto would permit the conviction, trial and execution upon a guilty sentence of APs arrested for abortions before the law is changed. If your post is about the time when it again become illegal forgive only the last two paragraphs.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Robert killing as a goal is precisely the antithesis of the Pro-life, Right to Life ethic. So whoever would suggest that killing any APs is a practice to be followed is neither Pro-life, Right to Life nor morally ethical.
Again, who ever said killing all abortion committers was the goal?
BTW, I am anti-baby-killing and clearly discriminate against baby killers over their victims.

reply from: faithman

Robert killing as a goal is precisely the antithesis of the Pro-life, Right to Life ethic. So whoever would suggest that killing any APs is a practice to be followed is neither Pro-life, Right to Life nor morally ethical.
Again, who ever said killing all abortion committers was the goal?
BTW, I am anti-baby-killing and clearly discriminate against baby killers over their victims.
Gosh robert, you just need to learn to lay down and let evil have it's way. Kinda like an alter boy being seduced by the parish preist. By the by, how are the cards working?

reply from: RobertFerguson

why do Matt and Dignitarian use proabort terms such as abortion "provider" instead of the antiabortion term abortion "committer" do they really thing abortion provides anything but death and destruction and of course, money for the baby killers?
Abortionists do not provide any worth while medical service. These baby killers should be ostercized from society rather than honored with false words such as "Provider", that is better reserved for Father God Almight and not a baby killing abortionist.
Despicable!

reply from: RobertFerguson

Robert killing as a goal is precisely the antithesis of the Pro-life, Right to Life ethic. So whoever would suggest that killing any APs is a practice to be followed is neither Pro-life, Right to Life nor morally ethical.
Again, who ever said killing all abortion committers was the goal?
BTW, I am anti-baby-killing and clearly discriminate against baby killers over their victims.
Gosh robert, you just need to learn to lay down and let evil have it's way. Kinda like an alter boy being seduced by the parish preist. By the by, how are the cards working?
Matt and Dig would like to exhault the baby killer to hieghts of a legitimate medical provider.
The I AM A PERSON cards are great. I have been leaving them at Restaurants and stores and watching the responses.

reply from: faithman

Robert killing as a goal is precisely the antithesis of the Pro-life, Right to Life ethic. So whoever would suggest that killing any APs is a practice to be followed is neither Pro-life, Right to Life nor morally ethical.
Again, who ever said killing all abortion committers was the goal?
BTW, I am anti-baby-killing and clearly discriminate against baby killers over their victims.
Gosh robert, you just need to learn to lay down and let evil have it's way. Kinda like an alter boy being seduced by the parish preist. By the by, how are the cards working?
Matt and Dig would like to exhault the baby killer to hieghts of a legitimate medical provider.
The I AM A PERSON cards are great. I have been leaving them at Restaurants and stores and watching the responses.
I like doing that me self. Its also fun getting some 3m spray glue, and putting them on gas pumps, fast food resterant doors and such. What kind of reactions have you gotten?

reply from: RobertFerguson

I have such spray glue. Good idea. I'll do it.
Lots of people have really looked it over. Some have shown it to their children and friends.

reply from: faithman

I have such spray glue. Good idea. I'll do it.
Lots of people have really looked it over. Some have shown it to their children and friends.
Thats what I'm talking about!!!! That is why I promote them so much. They are simple the right message, and extremely family freindly. They win hearts like nothing I have used since 1992, when I got into this stuff pretty much full time. They are simply the best material for around schools as well. The only ones who get up tight are the pro-aborts. And the I am a person shuts em down everytime.

reply from: MattG

I agree, Robert. An earlier post of yours, a response to another's included these linee" 1]Who ever said killing all abortion providers was the goal? Some abortion committers have quit killing. Since these baby killers are no longer an imminent threat- there would be no moral reason for anyone other than the government to kill them in seeking justice.
In my response to your response I added (APs) to make it easier to refer, but it was your initial use or a use that didn't bother you as much as mine that I was copying. It is sad that when a true pro-abort can't be found to harangue, you have to bait a true pro-lifer, who is quid pro quo, pro-choice...the right way.
I'm done with this. Have fun, Bobby.

reply from: RobertFerguson

You fool. I was quoting YOUR TERM "ABORTION PROVIDER" from the first sentance of your first post in this thread. I never call them this on my own.
What motivates you to use proabort terms of honor is still unknown.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Hmmm, Robert considers the term "abortion provider" to be an honorable title? Very interesting.........
Had CP wanted to be honest, he would have mentioned I said the honor is in the mind of the proabort, not myself.

reply from: dignitarian

I'm just going to close my eyes here and just throw something up on the wall to see if it will stick.
I noticed an issue being raised by some posters regarding terminology I have used; specifically the term, "abortion provider". Sometimes I really don't know how (or even whether) to respond to some of you guys. Look this isn't rocket science, if you call some one names, they are likely to call you names in return. The result is a bunch of guys calling each other names. I hate to break the news to you, but that type of thing just doesn't make for interesting reading.
Whomever it was that started all this, you're right, I could have used a term that perhaps better reflected what I really thought about someone who made a practice of dismembering innocent and defenseless human beings. But for that matter I could also have called some others anarchists. But the fact is I chose not to do so in order not to alienate someone (anyone) who might actually be interested in reading something someone else might have to say.
After all, that's the objective here, right?
Why do I have to explain this?
Dig

reply from: faithman

Scumbag maggot punk abortionist should be alienated. There is no reasoning with cold blooded babykillers. There is only one cure for a rabid dog. You don't feed them, and you certainly don't pet them. You alienate them from the main population so they don't infect others. The mad dog of planned parenthood has been given access to our children by sex ed in the schools. It is no wonder that the next crop of rabid pro-aborts are comeing from there? The cure is painful. several shots right to the gut. Lollipops do little as a cure. The lollipops of flowery words of pretensious niceness is what has kept abortion on demand legal for 34 years.

reply from: yoda

I think we ought to use plain, direct language at all times, regardless of the audience. The use of euphemisms is a way of helping them to cover up the bloodiness of their deeds. Dead babies deserve to at least have their death described accurately, not with euphemisms.
Their deeds are bloody, our language ought to reflect that accurately. They ARE baby killers, plain and simple.

reply from: faithman

I think we ought to use plain, direct language at all times, regardless of the audience. The use of euphemisms is a way of helping them to cover up the bloodiness of their deeds. Dead babies deserve to at least have their death described accurately, not with euphemisms.
Their deeds are bloody, our language ought to reflect that accurately. They ARE baby killers, plain and simple.
Baby killers it is then.

reply from: RobertFerguson

After all, that's the objective here, right?
Why do you have to explain this?

reply from: MattG

God bless you, Robert.

reply from: yoda

After all, that's the objective here, right?
Why do you have to explain this?
I wish I knew. I can't imagine anyone being deferential to a child molester, for example, and calling him a "morality-challenged individual". So why be deferential to one who slaughters thousands of babies? Why show them any respect at all?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I am thinking a few key issues have been missed by everyone here....
Before I say what I am thinking, I will give an example..
The aftereffects of war, the cold war, People die from these...And yet these afterwar problems aren't solved by further aggression...
John Paul made HUGE strides in ending the cold war and working against communism and he held no weapen (Except maybe a few "counting beads" as some have demeaningly called them)...
Abortion is a horrible thing.. and sadly our country allows it.
But to murder the abortion doctor is just as immoral, thats right I said it, JUST AS IMMORAL as killing the unborn.
To kill anyone, is to play God.
If you are pro-life then you are for life from conception to NATURAL DEATH. for EVERYONE. Being pro-life doesn't end after birth. Being anti abortion does.
If your against abortion, and not pro-life, then your cares end once a child is born..
So lets call a spade a spade, if you think killing an abortion doctor is okay, you are Not pro-life. you are anti-abortion.
We are called by our Faith, and by basic morals, to follow the laws of God and our country. We can work to outlaw abortion, and to save the unborn childrens lives, but we cannot kill the abortion doctors.
God loves the abortion doctor as much as the unborn child.
and both of them have an EQUAL right to life. To kill the abortion doctor then gives the unborn child a higher right to life.
We cannot kill an abortion doctor, but we can Pray and witness outside his clinic doors. Our country allows abortion, but it also allows us to work against it.
I completely understand the logic of killing an abortion doctor before he kills an unborn child being moral.
but morals are NOT logical.
The second you want to try to tie logic to morals, you get all sorts of foolish ideals.Including progression of personhood.

reply from: JohnGlenn

This appears to be contradicted in the rest of your post where you offer your own moral beliefs based on your faith as evidence- that claims we can not kill abortion "doctors".

reply from: yoda

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

This appears to be contradicted in the rest of your post where you offer your own moral beliefs based on your faith as evidence- that claims we can not kill abortion "doctors".
This is true.
As yodavater said in the following post, "I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical."
The compairisons I made were simply that of following already established views. I wasn't using logic to CREATE a moral excuse for something, I was using established schools of thought to justify my stance.
I shouldn't have used "doctors" after abortion, yes yes I know. its habit. When you are actually talking to these girls outside the clinic you have to use terminology that won't turn them off, so you can talk to them long enough to change their minds..So if I use "abortion doctor" or "abortion clinic" or "pro-choice" ect I know those aren't accurate, Its simply habit.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.
A lot of terms are already defined that aren't defined accurately.
Just because commonplace language calls something by a name, doesn't make it okay. Just think about the word.
Pro-Life. FOR LIFE. not for JUST THE UNBORN LIFE. but FOR LIFE.
Anti-abortion. Against Abortion. Not Pro-life, just against abortion.
It seems obvious that many people on here only have a concern for the abortion issue. Which as good as it can be to be focused on one thing, you are missing the bigger picture.
If you think abortion is the only issue in Pro-life, there is a problem.
You can save that unborn child (which is an amazing feeling, i know!) but then how much did you really care if after you saved it, you didn't worry about if it would be fed.
What about the mothers? This is a VERY hard/expensive time in their life.
and what about the abortionists, they were raised being told abortion is fine, they were brainwashed in med school to be taught it was fine, the feminist movements and liberal movements condone and support them, and they believe they are doing a SERVICE.
So, someone who totally thinks they are doing something okay is still permissible to be killed? then you aren't for that persons life. and you aren't Pro-life.
The REAL goal would be to save the unborns life, and then try to save the abortionist.
To forget the mother and the abortionist simply drops 2/3 of the issue.
We outlaw abortion, but don't change the minds of the abortionists and the women, what happens? Backally abortions. Nobody's mind was changed, and we didn't save all the unborn childrens lives.
If abortion is the only issue on being pro-life, then once it is outlawed will there be no more pro-life movement?
I know how horrible the abortionists are, and how much they are disliked. Trust me, i've delt with them time and time again.
but they are still just as loved and valueable in Gods eyes as the unborn. He has just as big a plan for them as for the unborn.
you can take the gun from the criminal, but until you change his heart he will just find another gun.

reply from: faithman

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.
A lot of terms are already defined that aren't defined accurately.
Just because commonplace language calls something by a name, doesn't make it okay. Just think about the word.
Pro-Life. FOR LIFE. not for JUST THE UNBORN LIFE. but FOR LIFE.
Anti-abortion. Against Abortion. Not Pro-life, just against abortion.
It seems obvious that many people on here only have a concern for the abortion issue. Which as good as it can be to be focused on one thing, you are missing the bigger picture.
If you think abortion is the only issue in Pro-life, there is a problem.
You can save that unborn child (which is an amazing feeling, i know!) but then how much did you really care if after you saved it, you didn't worry about if it would be fed.
What about the mothers? This is a VERY hard/expensive time in their life.
and what about the abortionists, they were raised being told abortion is fine, they were brainwashed in med school to be taught it was fine, the feminist movements and liberal movements condone and support them, and they believe they are doing a SERVICE.
So, someone who totally thinks they are doing something okay is still permissible to be killed? then you aren't for that persons life. and you aren't Pro-life.
The REAL goal would be to save the unborns life, and then try to save the abortionist.
To forget the mother and the abortionist simply drops 2/3 of the issue.
We outlaw abortion, but don't change the minds of the abortionists and the women, what happens? Backally abortions. Nobody's mind was changed, and we didn't save all the unborn childrens lives.
If abortion is the only issue on being pro-life, then once it is outlawed will there be no more pro-life movement?
I know how horrible the abortionists are, and how much they are disliked. Trust me, i've delt with them time and time again.
but they are still just as loved and valueable in Gods eyes as the unborn. He has just as big a plan for them as for the unborn.
you can take the gun from the criminal, but until you change his heart he will just find another gun.
That is why, if a criminal is hell bent on taking human life, you totally take away his ability to do so by taking his life. When an abortionist stopps breathing, they no longer can kill babies, and before you tell the lie that they will just be replaced by another abortionist, it is a fact that the abortion industry is in crisis over not being able to find folk willing to do the deed. every time an abortionist dies or retires, clinics shut down for lack of a killer.

reply from: yoda

Okay, I think you are making a few "errors of reasoning" here:
One, you are claiming "inaccuracy" exists in word definitions based solely on your understanding of those words, and not on how our society actually uses those words...... which is, after all, what dictionaries are supposed to report...... how they are actually used by a majority of our society.
Two, "commonplace language" is made up of words commonly used, and no moral judgment can be made on which are "okay" or not. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's simply a matter of what people mean when they use those words.
Three, compound words and multi-word phrases are not defined by taking them apart and analyzing their individual parts, they are defined by how they are used as a whole word or phrase. Take "hot dog", for example...... does it mean an overheated member of the canine species?
And last but certainly not least, unless we honor the honest, accurate definitions of words found in dictionaries, how are we going to counter the proaborts when they say "But it's NOT a child/baby/person/human being"? If we quote the dictionary, they will say "But YOU said the dictionary was WRONG...."

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.
A lot of terms are already defined that aren't defined accurately.
Just because commonplace language calls something by a name, doesn't make it okay. Just think about the word.
Pro-Life. FOR LIFE. not for JUST THE UNBORN LIFE. but FOR LIFE.
Anti-abortion. Against Abortion. Not Pro-life, just against abortion.
It seems obvious that many people on here only have a concern for the abortion issue. Which as good as it can be to be focused on one thing, you are missing the bigger picture.
If you think abortion is the only issue in Pro-life, there is a problem.
You can save that unborn child (which is an amazing feeling, i know!) but then how much did you really care if after you saved it, you didn't worry about if it would be fed.
What about the mothers? This is a VERY hard/expensive time in their life.
and what about the abortionists, they were raised being told abortion is fine, they were brainwashed in med school to be taught it was fine, the feminist movements and liberal movements condone and support them, and they believe they are doing a SERVICE.
So, someone who totally thinks they are doing something okay is still permissible to be killed? then you aren't for that persons life. and you aren't Pro-life.
The REAL goal would be to save the unborns life, and then try to save the abortionist.
To forget the mother and the abortionist simply drops 2/3 of the issue.
We outlaw abortion, but don't change the minds of the abortionists and the women, what happens? Backally abortions. Nobody's mind was changed, and we didn't save all the unborn childrens lives.
If abortion is the only issue on being pro-life, then once it is outlawed will there be no more pro-life movement?
I know how horrible the abortionists are, and how much they are disliked. Trust me, i've delt with them time and time again.
but they are still just as loved and valueable in Gods eyes as the unborn. He has just as big a plan for them as for the unborn.
you can take the gun from the criminal, but until you change his heart he will just find another gun.
That is why, if a criminal is hell bent on taking human life, you totally take away his ability to do so by taking his life. When an abortionist stopps breathing, they no longer can kill babies, and before you tell the lie that they will just be replaced by another abortionist, it is a fact that the abortion industry is in crisis over not being able to find folk willing to do the deed. every time an abortionist dies or retires, clinics shut down for lack of a killer.
Woah woah woah, I think I know about the decline in abortionists.. "Abortion is to medicin as prostitution is to romance." .. Please remember to attack my arguements and not me, and also remember I'm on your side (Just have some different oppinions). Don't assume what I'm going to say...If I were to be argueing against you, I wouldn't use the same things everyone else does.

reply from: faithman

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.
A lot of terms are already defined that aren't defined accurately.
Just because commonplace language calls something by a name, doesn't make it okay. Just think about the word.
Pro-Life. FOR LIFE. not for JUST THE UNBORN LIFE. but FOR LIFE.
Anti-abortion. Against Abortion. Not Pro-life, just against abortion.
It seems obvious that many people on here only have a concern for the abortion issue. Which as good as it can be to be focused on one thing, you are missing the bigger picture.
If you think abortion is the only issue in Pro-life, there is a problem.
You can save that unborn child (which is an amazing feeling, i know!) but then how much did you really care if after you saved it, you didn't worry about if it would be fed.
What about the mothers? This is a VERY hard/expensive time in their life.
and what about the abortionists, they were raised being told abortion is fine, they were brainwashed in med school to be taught it was fine, the feminist movements and liberal movements condone and support them, and they believe they are doing a SERVICE.
So, someone who totally thinks they are doing something okay is still permissible to be killed? then you aren't for that persons life. and you aren't Pro-life.
The REAL goal would be to save the unborns life, and then try to save the abortionist.
To forget the mother and the abortionist simply drops 2/3 of the issue.
We outlaw abortion, but don't change the minds of the abortionists and the women, what happens? Backally abortions. Nobody's mind was changed, and we didn't save all the unborn childrens lives.
If abortion is the only issue on being pro-life, then once it is outlawed will there be no more pro-life movement?
I know how horrible the abortionists are, and how much they are disliked. Trust me, i've delt with them time and time again.
but they are still just as loved and valueable in Gods eyes as the unborn. He has just as big a plan for them as for the unborn.
you can take the gun from the criminal, but until you change his heart he will just find another gun.
That is why, if a criminal is hell bent on taking human life, you totally take away his ability to do so by taking his life. When an abortionist stopps breathing, they no longer can kill babies, and before you tell the lie that they will just be replaced by another abortionist, it is a fact that the abortion industry is in crisis over not being able to find folk willing to do the deed. every time an abortionist dies or retires, clinics shut down for lack of a killer.
Woah woah woah, I think I know about the decline in abortionists.. "Abortion is to medicin as prostitution is to romance." .. Please remember to attack my arguements and not me, and also remember I'm on your side (Just have some different oppinions). Don't assume what I'm going to say...If I were to be argueing against you, I wouldn't use the same things everyone else does.
I haven't the time to woah, as another 3-4000 will die today because pussy footed "pro-lifers" haven't the guts to do what stops it, and spend far to much time condemning the ones who do. This issue will never be won as long as it remains passive. It will end when we make it known that under no uncertain terms will this legalized slaughter be tolerated. If we were a just nation, every clinic would burn tonight, and every abortionist would quit one way or another period. Abortion on demand will continue as long as we tolerate it.

reply from: JohnGlenn

What does your post have to do with the one you are replying to? Anything?

reply from: faithman

What does your post have to do with the one you are replying to? Anything?
Sometimes I think that "pro-lifers" use the same librarious rectumous that the pro-aborts use as a source from which to pull their information.

reply from: dignitarian

Dear Anarchists:
So when you have finally succeeded in your task of killing all the baby killers and our law lies strewn about in ruins, upon what will you then rely for protection of the innocent and helpless among us?
Certainly not the law, for by then you will have already destroyed it.
Law is a tool of civilization, like any tool it can be used for good or bad. If you choose to destroy the only tool available for a society to protect the innocent and defenseless, you defeat the very purpose you sought in the first place.
The law may not be entirely legitimate from a moral perspective, but the problem is, from the standpoint of all possible human perspective, it will never be. The law is a product of man, and because of this alone, it is, and always will be, imperfect. But without the law, nothing but survival of the fittest remains, and civilization is doomed.

What you say and what you promote, you hail among yourselves as heroic. You can go ahead and keep patting one another on the back, but are you guys so simple and so self absorbed as to not even notice that hardly anyone else in the forum can even bear such deprecation?
Whether or not you like the law, you need the law. Don't think you will solve anything by destroying it. The fact is, the root cause of abortion is a large scale cultural sickness, and as long as this sickness remains, so will abortion.
Regards,
Dignitarian
PS: I'm still anxious to know what any of you would like to do about those instances of abortion affected by the simple swallowing of a pill.

reply from: JohnGlenn

It's a shame that your arguement to discriminate against the defense for the unborn is so weak you feel you must resort to dishonesty.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Yes, I just read a few "errors of reasoning" in Dig's latest post.
He thinks the goal of you, I and others is killing all abortionists and likes to label advocates for equality for all humans as anarchy.

reply from: yoda

I've never spoken with anyone who espoused that goal. It doesn't make sense to me, since they have the full force of the federal and local governments behind them, and since groups like PP can bring in abortionists even from outside the country, with their almost unlimited funding. Killing even one abortionist is not a goal for me, as I don't think it's a logical way to go about saving babies.
There's a wide gap between anarchy and slavishness to the law, and I suspect that most of us fall somewhere in between. I don't know anyone who drives under the speed limit all the time, so apparently there aren't many folks to are obsessive about obeying every law. And anarchists reject all authority, but they don't get far in this country. So I think that most everyone picks and chooses which laws they will obey, and which they will break.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Sorry, those terms are already well-defined by many dictionaries, and they say that being pro-life means to be opposed to the legal status of abortion, and maybe embryonic stem cell research. We can't redefine them for ourselves.
I think that morals can be compared to each other in a perfectly logical fashion. It's the origin of morals that is not logical.
A lot of terms are already defined that aren't defined accurately.
Just because commonplace language calls something by a name, doesn't make it okay. Just think about the word.
Pro-Life. FOR LIFE. not for JUST THE UNBORN LIFE. but FOR LIFE.
Anti-abortion. Against Abortion. Not Pro-life, just against abortion.
It seems obvious that many people on here only have a concern for the abortion issue. Which as good as it can be to be focused on one thing, you are missing the bigger picture.
If you think abortion is the only issue in Pro-life, there is a problem.
You can save that unborn child (which is an amazing feeling, i know!) but then how much did you really care if after you saved it, you didn't worry about if it would be fed.
What about the mothers? This is a VERY hard/expensive time in their life.
and what about the abortionists, they were raised being told abortion is fine, they were brainwashed in med school to be taught it was fine, the feminist movements and liberal movements condone and support them, and they believe they are doing a SERVICE.
So, someone who totally thinks they are doing something okay is still permissible to be killed? then you aren't for that persons life. and you aren't Pro-life.
The REAL goal would be to save the unborns life, and then try to save the abortionist.
To forget the mother and the abortionist simply drops 2/3 of the issue.
We outlaw abortion, but don't change the minds of the abortionists and the women, what happens? Backally abortions. Nobody's mind was changed, and we didn't save all the unborn childrens lives.
If abortion is the only issue on being pro-life, then once it is outlawed will there be no more pro-life movement?
I know how horrible the abortionists are, and how much they are disliked. Trust me, i've delt with them time and time again.
but they are still just as loved and valueable in Gods eyes as the unborn. He has just as big a plan for them as for the unborn.
you can take the gun from the criminal, but until you change his heart he will just find another gun.
That is why, if a criminal is hell bent on taking human life, you totally take away his ability to do so by taking his life. When an abortionist stopps breathing, they no longer can kill babies, and before you tell the lie that they will just be replaced by another abortionist, it is a fact that the abortion industry is in crisis over not being able to find folk willing to do the deed. every time an abortionist dies or retires, clinics shut down for lack of a killer.
Woah woah woah, I think I know about the decline in abortionists.. "Abortion is to medicin as prostitution is to romance." .. Please remember to attack my arguements and not me, and also remember I'm on your side (Just have some different oppinions). Don't assume what I'm going to say...If I were to be argueing against you, I wouldn't use the same things everyone else does.
I haven't the time to woah, as another 3-4000 will die today because pussy footed "pro-lifers" haven't the guts to do what stops it, and spend far to much time condemning the ones who do. This issue will never be won as long as it remains passive. It will end when we make it known that under no uncertain terms will this legalized slaughter be tolerated. If we were a just nation, every clinic would burn tonight, and every abortionist would quit one way or another period. Abortion on demand will continue as long as we tolerate it.
Pussy footed pro-lifers.
Have you ever stepped out from behind your keyboard and done something pro-life?
Faith Without Works Is dead.
you are talking a lot, but nothing you have said you have done.
You have not saved one unborn child, and yet you attack someone who has.
your pride is so big, i don't think this forum has room for anyone else.
Pussy footed pro-lifers? You're too busy attacking the people sharing common goals to accomplish your own goals. "A house devided CANNOT STAND".
you my friend cannot end abortion on your own. And yodavater and others have given clear reasons why killing aboritonists is not moral.
As a Catholic its as simple for me as that my Church doesn't condone murder of ANY kind.
As a Christian it is as simple as the bible doesn't allow this.
And as someone who is for all life its obvious.
You want to kill these people before you have tried to save them.
I equate your thirst for abortionists bloods to nothing more then mofia tactics.
The mafia would kill someone when they were commiting a mortal sin, to try to send their souls to hell. You wish death upon someone without trying to let them change.
you need to understand something.
You will NOT save the unborn in any manner you have presented that I have seen.
you say kill the abortionists to save the unborn, have you killed an abortionist?
Unless you are going to do it, find a way that you can actually save an unborn child that you are going to do.
Its obvious you can't sidewalk council outside an abortuary because you would just yell at the women.
Look. I will repeat that we are trying to accomplish the same thing.
I want abortion done with..
But I'm only willing to end it in a way that I don't commit any other wrong to do it.
since in this situation that is possible, its the only moral thing to do.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is only acceptible if there is no chance to avoid any evil.
you blame pussyfoot prolifers.
I blame nobody.
I just realize there is a good chance we could have easily ended aboriton if ALL pro-lifers decided to work together.
Standoffish holier then thou pro-lifers who have no concern for anything other then one problem caused by abortion completely cause more problems then good.
Its the killers of abortion doctors who give the pro-lifers less standing and less respect.
Can you give me ANY idea on anything we can do for the children we will save by ending aboriton after they are born? Or do you not care if once they are born they are rotting in an alley because they have been abandond.
Saving a child from abortion does nothing if you don't then try to better its life.
And when you kill an abortion doctor, the women have an abortion at a different clinic.
When you change a womans mind, she doesn't go back to an abortion clinic.
Thats my view.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Let me also clarify. If you have saved an unborn childs life, you haven't mentioned it.
All I meant by that was you talk about ending abortion, but so far you haven't presented any proof that your tactics have worked.
You can't PROVE that any children have been saved by killing an abortionists, those women just went to another clinic.
That was my point there.
My mention of the mofia only was to point out you aren't caring at all for the life or soul of the abortion doctors.
(Remember, abortion doctors who become pro-life have done some of the most amazing things in the pro-life arena.)

reply from: RobertFerguson

All you have are lies? Bearing a false witness is one of God's top ten. It must be difficult to have no substantial response to advocating equal defense for the preborn.

reply from: RobertFerguson

You have not been here long enough to make such a claim.
Probably your tactic is to bear a false witness and lie when you do not have the facts.
A mother wrote to thank Paul Hill for saving her son from abortion the day he shot the baby killer. She named her son Paul in honor of Hill.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I must have missed where Yodavater stated any such thing.
When asked about using lethal defense that is legitimate for the born to defend the unborn, Yoda replied: "I, for one, will not make a moral distinction between unborn and born human beings."
I simply do not believe you. Please provide such comment in it's context.

reply from: yoda

That's because I haven't stated it. I've stated my reasons for not doing that, and my reasons for thinking that isn't the best way to save babies. Morality is all about motives, and I have not condemned the motives of any ProLifer/antiabortionist.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

"All you have are lies? Bearing a false witness is one of God's top ten. It must be difficult to have no substantial response to advocating equal defense for the preborn.
You have not been here long enough to make such a claim.
Probably your tactic is to bear a false witness and lie when you do not have the facts.
A mother wrote to thank Paul Hill for saving her son from abortion the day he shot the baby killer. She named her son Paul in honor of Hill. "
Seniority permits statement? Hmmm.
anyways.
I have not given any false witness.
Alright. Let me put it this way.
You kill an abortionist and best case scenario you have saved every child who would have been killed at that clinic for a week. after that week people start getting appointments at another clinic.
Now you are in jail for murder.
Assuming there would have been 5 abortions each day for that week.
you are in jail for years.
Even if you only went to a clinic once every few weeks, and had one save each time, you would still save more children then you did by killing that abortionist.
So even if it is moral and okay, its still not the best way.
Fair enough?
(Mind you when I have gone to the abortuary on howard street in baltimore which is one of the biggest in maryland, i've gone on saturdays which are the busiest day and there is usually only 3-6 who go in for abortions. a bad day has had close to 10)
so. Even if we said 10 each day for that week, you will still do more good not going to jail.
If I stated before that you do ABSOULTELY NO GOOD by killing an abortion doctor then I apologize as that was not my intended statement.
Even if you are calling it mora, which I do not, it does less good.
Now look at the instance of the pro-choicers (especially the aboritonists) who have a conversion, look at the amazing good they do.
So not only are you killing them, taking away THEIR right to life, and risking damnnation of their souls, but you aren't even doing the most good possible.
you are estranging yourself from other pro-lifers, and causing a devision. ("Let there be no divisons among you.")
a mother wrote and thanked paul. hmm.
You should hear the MANY stories prolifers like the ones from stand true tell about how they has had women come to them at clinics they go to and 9 months later they come back and let the prolifers hold the children.
"It doesn't make sense to me, since they have the full force of the federal and local governments behind them, and since groups like PP can bring in abortionists even from outside the country, with their almost unlimited funding. Killing even one abortionist is not a goal for me, as I don't think it's a logical way to go about saving babies" - Yodavater
I didn't mean to make the statement that yodavater was against it, but even he says its not the most logical way.
Yodavater maybe I misunderstood you.
"
That's because I haven't stated it. I've stated my reasons for not doing that, and my reasons for thinking that isn't the best way to save babies. Morality is all about motives, and I have not condemned the motives of any ProLifer/antiabortionist."
To me that says that morals are relative...and I really don't believe they are.
If morals are relative then abortion can be justified.
If someone does not believe a "fetus" is a child and they have an abortion so that they don't put financial stress on their spouse and other children then their decision was morally acceptable. In fact if they wanted to have that child, (but remember they don't think they killed the child) then they actually made a sacrafice for their families.
see my point?
Also, I apologize for any point in which case I was rude to anyone on here. I am simply trying to state my views.
and people can attack my arguements but they shouldn't attack ME. In the same way I shouldn't attack them. You will NOT change someone else's mind by being rude.
That is my point.
For Christ I Stand,
Keith

reply from: yoda

I neither said nor intended to imply that. You totally misunderstood my post. All I said was that I had not criticized nor endorsed the motives of any ProLifer/antiabortionist.
You may as well get used to that. My response is usually to agree with anyone who attacks me personally, and then ask them how that makes it any more moral to kill babies.
Oh, and it helps the readability of the forum to delete all but the parts of the other person's post that you are replying to. The posts stay shorter that way.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

That is why I asked, I thought I probaly was taking it the wrong way, but just in the case that I didn't misunderstand I had to mention it.
It's sad we have to get used to people attacking each other people, to me thats just pathetic, its exactly what those exact people yell at other people for. They cannot reply to a presented arguement and so they attack the person presenting that arguement.
I will still try to avoid being rude despite the fact, but I like your idea of how to deal with it.
Sorry about the spam quoting, every forum has different ways of quoting, I'm not used to this one. I've been yelled at on other forums for not presenting the entire past debate.

reply from: fetalisa

Uh no. You have the freedoms of press, the freedoms of speech, the freedoms of assembly, etc. You have all of the freedoms necessary to present your case to the public in the form of logically valid arguments that will sway the voters to your side at the ballot box.
The fact you can't construct a logically valid argument to win the hearts and minds of the public to your point of view, is a failure on your part, not a failure on the part of the government.
Then construct a winning argument and reverse your own failures with the public. Or, create another Paul Hill and give the public yet another reason to see the entirety of your movement as full of extremist lunatics hell bent on killing all with whom they disagree. Yeah, that will surely win the hearts and mind of the public, won't it?
Don't forget pills to prevent implantation are now readily available over the counters of numerous pharmacies, making some abortions no longer necessary.
Yet, neither Hill nor Rudolph can kill doctors anymore either, can they?
The sad thing is you see this as something to be proud of, when in fact it makes you just as much of a religious extremist as Mulsims who fly planes into buildings. How said for you that rather than taking the high road and constructing a logically valid argument to win the hearts and minds of the public, you would rather have a very false sense of power from scaring people into doing as you wish. What a pathetic weakling you and those of your ilk are.
Because you don't know as much about morality as you think you do. If you did, you wouldn't support scaring people into doing as you wish, like every other garden variety terrorist who ever existed.
Which accomplishes what, now that abortion pills can be bought all over the country without a prescription? What makes you so pitifully pathetic is your belief that by killing others you can somehow win, because winning through terrorism means more to you than living peacefully with those with whom you disagree, in a free society.
You are the only despot here, not our government. You would rather blame the government than admit your arguments against abortion are so totally bogus the public refuses to buy into them 34 years after the fact.
And ***** the born kids who can't be adopted due to being the wrong race of having difficult health issues. That's all that matters to you is those not born. The born can suffer until they die, for all you care.
Because we have many examples throughout history of pathetic weaklings like you who would rather dishonestly take what they can't honestly win a free society.
You don't know the first thing about our system. You have felt for most of your life that you had no power and are wholly inadequate. You mistakenly believe a terrorist campaign will somehow give you the personal power you have lacked throughout your entire life.
It just kills you that you can't control what others do. You answer to that is to kill those with whom you disagree.
Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves that given all the freedoms you have to spread your ideas, you would rather unjustly rule the public through violent tyranny, than win the hearts and minds of the public using the freedoms our forefathers insured for all on this soil.
Go right ahead and mount your terror campaign. Further push and marginalize your movement to an more extreme fringe than it already is now. Continue fooling yourself that you will somehow accomplish something of value in doing so. Meanwhile, you will go down in history as yet another criminal with no conscience or respect for our laws or freedoms, whatsoever.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

"Uh no. You have the freedoms of press, the freedoms of speech, the freedoms of assembly, etc. You have all of the freedoms necessary to present your case to the public in the form of logically valid arguments that will sway the voters to your side at the ballot box.
The fact you can't construct a logically valid argument to win the hearts and minds of the public to your point of view, is a failure on your part, not a failure on the part of the government. "
Constructing a logically valid arguement only works when truth is in the public forum.
There is too much bull*****, too many lies that have Legally been put out there. The way you are talking about is important, yes we must change the laws, but thousands will die before that. So until then, while we work towards that, we have to be doing more. I don't think killing abortionsts, or anyone else for that matter, is what we should do. But we still have to take more action then just legistlative.
"Don't forget pills to prevent implantation are now readily available over the counters of numerous pharmacies, making some abortions no longer necessary. "
Implantation is after conception.
Conception is when life starts.
So this arguement still doesn't work.
"The sad thing is you see this as something to be proud of, when in fact it makes you just as much of a religious extremist as Mulsims who fly planes into buildings. How said for you that rather than taking the high road and constructing a logically valid argument to win the hearts and minds of the public, you would rather have a very false sense of power from scaring people into doing as you wish. What a pathetic weakling you and those of your ilk are. "
I agree that extremist things such as this only further demeans and degrades the public view/support of the pro-life movement.
the fact that these people realize how important ending abortion is however is worth remark. There are other ways though. what is being advocated by these extreme pro-lifers is indeed terroresq but not all the way.
AND you have to think of all the terroresq means that pro-choicers have used.
Planned parenthood has blatantly refused to obey court orders. blatantly refused to now obey many laws and codes. they have put out false reports and false health claims. they dont warn about the risks of abortion. They scare young women into thinking if they keep the child their life is over. They hire thugs to attack pro-lifers who peacefully protest outside the clinics. They call cops on people like me and my 'ilk' who are not casuing any problems.
Admit your faults as well as ours.
"Which accomplishes what, now that abortion pills can be bought all over the country without a prescription? What makes you so pitifully pathetic is your belief that by killing others you can somehow win, because winning through terrorism means more to you than living peacefully with those with whom you disagree, in a free society. "
those pills still kill a child. AND our free society has taken the freedom away from the unborn.
but its a good point that if we kill abortionists shouldn't we also kill every single line worker in a abortificient pill factory?
thats one reason I don't see any logic in killing abortionists.
"You are the only despot here, not our government. You would rather blame the government than admit your arguments against abortion are so totally bogus the public refuses to buy into them 34 years after the fact."
The public doesn't refuse, the majority public agrees. and many who don't agreed don't do so because they have been given purposly planted misinformation.
"And ***** the born kids who can't be adopted due to being the wrong race of having difficult health issues. That's all that matters to you is those not born. The born can suffer until they die, for all you care. "
Some friends of mine are in russia now for the second time (out of their own pockets) trying to adopt a young girl.
Not everyone who wants to do that can afford it.
Doesn't mean we don't give the unborn the chance to live anyways.
Look at einstine (sp?) and other famous people who not only had mental disabilities that today are called reasons to abort, but they also came from total poverty.
And millions of dollars that COULD be given to the poor children of america (which EVERYONE agrees needs to be helped) is being given to abortion. So lets cut the tax payers funding of abortion and give it to saving the poor childrens lives.
"Because we have many examples throughout history of pathetic weaklings like you who would rather dishonestly take what they can't honestly win a free society. "
You mention honesty, but look at the media. did you see any coverage of the 200,000+ people who marched in D.C. for life? No.
And look at all the lies told to people in abortion clinics and in schools.
Look at how parents freedoms to teach their children about God and life starting at conception is Negated and contradicted in schools.
"Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves that given all the freedoms you have to spread your ideas, you would rather unjustly rule the public through violent tyranny, than win the hearts and minds of the public using the freedoms our forefathers insured for all on this soil."
They are also rolling in their graves about many other things I have clearly stated here.

reply from: fetalisa

The truth is in the public forum. It has been for 34 years.
Rather than making random claims, which say and mean nothing, why don't you instead provide examples so we can have some idea of what you are talking about here?
Who care if thousands of unborns die? We can reproduce as many of them as we might ever need in petri dishes. Likewise, if a woman aborts today she can be pregnant again tomorrow, next week, next month.
For instance, let's say I had been aborted. No one on the face of this planet, not you, not me, not anyone else, would have ever known the difference, which only proves abortion results in no harm at all.
It's a free society. Go do it.
Then you need to reign in the loose canons with loose screws within your movement. Toning down the rhetoric will also serve not to inflame these powerless loose screws amongst you.
You've been doing that for 34 years. The arguments are falling flat as pancakes because they aren't persuasive, they only convince the gullible and most of all, they are logically invalid, resulting in a situation where the unborn have special rights above and beyond any rights the born people have, which makes them unconstitutional to enact, since it would leave unequal treatment within the law, leaving unborn with far greater rights than born have. Gee, do think that might be why the public won't support such hair-brained horse*****?
WHOOSH! That's the sound of my point flying over your head. My point was, what is the point of killing abortion doctors when PERFECTLY SAFE pills which prevent implantation are available OVER THE COUNTER ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY? The answer is there is no point.
As far as life beginning at conception, WHO CARES? If you will die without a kidney transplant, you may not have or use my kidney without my consent. Likewise, an unborn may not use the uterus of another without consent either. If we made it so the unborn could use the body of another without their consent, THEN WE WOULD BE GRANTING RIGHTS TO THE UNBORN THAT BORN PEOPLE DON"T EVEN HAVE!
IT'S CALLED UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!
THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
You are very wise in noting that violence 'further demeans and degrades the public view/support of the pro-life movement.' Given the reactions to Hill and Rudolph, combined with the pitiful turnout at Tiller's on the Roe anniversary (compared to earlier protests), you are right to be concerned about the weakening interest in the movement on the part of the public. Even South Dakota refused to address an abortion ban again. That's just what you need right now is another prolife whackjob senselessly murdering another doctor, isn't it? On the other hand, it might well finally turn the public completely against the movement, leaving us viewing you as being in the same category as those who still believe the earth is flat.
Not to the point of discussing murder of doctors. I only hope the FBI is watching these boards.
Although you may not be advocating violence yourself, you are just as extreme in your viewpoint, in that what you advocate is the unborn have the right to use the body of another without consent, when neither you nor I have that right. So much for equal treatment under the law. Yet I am sure you are totally puzzled why the public doesn't take your arguments seriously.
The pro-choice movement did not produce the Hills or the Rudolphs.
WHO CARES? If PP is in violation you report them. It's just that simple. If nothing results from those reports, then the chances are very high the information you have about what PP does was wholly false. You do know they offer ob/gyn services and have taken part of the births of MANY wanted pregnancies. Seeing PP in black and white terms, much like a 5 year old sees the world, isn't going to win the minds and hearts of the voters to your side, especially amongst the voters who birthed everyone of their kids at PP clinics. Can you grasp that?
Now I know you are talking pure nonsense pulled straight from your behind. What evidence do you have for this? If PP doctors weren't informing their patients as to what the risk of the surgery was, or didn't tell patients exactly what the surgery does, there would be a MOUNTAIN of lawsuits against the physicians at PP for malpractice and the insurance companies would be up in arms.
So by all means, what possible evidence can you have which proves PP doctors are not informing patients properly about risks of abortion surgeries? If you don't have such evidence will you then step up to the plate and stop spreading these lies?
You really need to stop this charade. The prolife movement is advertising their pregnancy centers under the 'Abortion Services' tag in the phone books. When women call, they don't even bother to tell them these Pregnancy Resource centers don't even do abortions. Once the women show up for their appointments, these prolife PRCs then tell these women abortion will leave them infertile, abortion causes breast cancer, or that they will suffer from post-abortion stress syndrome, which isn't even recognized by either of the American Psychological or Psychiatric Associations. http://campusprogress.org/features/1051/uncle-sams-pregnancy-scam
How dare you accuse PP of scaring women off of pregnancy, which is a claim you can't even document, However, we have solid documentation that proves these prolife pregnancy centers are spreading lies solely to scare women off abortions. How can you or anyone in your movement possibly claim to have some moral high ground when you so easily lie to pregnant women regarding the risks of abortion? If your position and your arguments were so sound in the abortion debate, there would be no need at all for such lies. You underestimate the public in thinking we are too stupid to know about the fraud and scams you are perpetrating on the public. There is no way the prolife movement will escape the consequences of such fraud either.
Yet you can't figure out why the public won't endorse your position, while the steady stream of lies, contrary to all known scientific data, flows out of the prolife movement like so much sewage. And then you dare to have the nerve to accuse PP of scaring women off of pregnancy when it is the prolife movement scaring women off abortion with lies and fraud. You are so indoctrinated into the prolife cult you don't even realize how many kids have been birthed at PP, which means PP has no reason AT ALL to scare women away from pregnancy. You are being so full of*****here it's not even funny.
Those people are volunteers not paid. They have as much right to be there as you do. You are just pissed off that as you and your half-wit cohorts start screaming 'baby-killer' at a woman walking into the clinic, they turn up boomboxes so your insults can't be heard. Chances are that woman walking in was planning on birthing her child, not that you would care. Sorry that the public streets don't belong solely to you and your prolife thugs, but our streets are for everyone, not just you and the other killers in the prolife movement.
Take this horse***** somewhere else. I know exactly what you and your cohorts have been doing since the early 80s. Many in our society know it, which is exactly why you can't win the hearts and minds of the public, even aside from the scientifically invalid lies you perpetrate regarding abortion.
Abortion is still legal. I admit that I know why. As a matter of fact, don't even change your arguments. Don't change the way you protest. Keep doing what you been doing since the 80s. Keep spreading lies regarding abortion. It's worked so well so far, hasn't it?
A fertilized one celled zygote is not a child. Look it up in a medical dictionary, ok?
Unborn don't have rights, because they aren't legal persons. You can't take my kidney without my consent, if a transplant will allow you to continue living. Likewise, the unborn can't use the body of another to continue living without consent either. The unborn have the same rights to the body of another that the born have. It's called equal treatment under the law.
Oh, I get it. The majority public agrees with you everywhere except the one place where it counts, the ballot box. Sure they do.
It's not misinformation to state a zygote, embryo or fetus is nowhere near the same thing as my mom. I would choose the life of my mom over a zygote, embryo of fetus anyday, because the born have far more value, than the unborn will ever have.
It's not misinformation to state, had I been aborted, not you, nor anyone else on this planet, would have ever known the difference, which is why we know abortion is morally neutral. It's the truth, plain and simple.
Well of course they are. They don't want a brown child. They don't want an older child. They don't want a handicapped child. So off they go to Russia. What else is new?
We won't grant special rights to the unborn which even the born do not possess, like say, the right to use the body of another without that person's consent. That turns the idea of equal treatment under the law upside down.
For all you know, 20 million Jeffrey Dahmers could have been aborted over the past few years. But wait. That's right. For those who are aborted, it makes no difference at all to those of us left here, just as in the case that I had been aborted.
We can still give those millions to help poor kids, by taking it away from the pregnancy resource centers backed by the prolifers who lie and deceive women regarding the risks of abortion, in order to rob them of having any choice at all.
Let's cut all faith-based funding and all prolife pregnancy centers off at the knees by legislating that no medical clinic may continue operation unless it provides scientifically factual information to its patients. How about that?
What's up with your television? Are you still on rabbit ears? It ran all day long, across at least two days, if I remember correctly. Why are you lying about it? Do you think lying about it will win the hearts and minds of the public?
There's none to look at until and unless you provide some evidence. But even then, the only evidence you can provide is from crackpot organizations such as the Elliott Institute. How do we know it's crackpot? The data they spread contradicts all known scientific and medical data on file with the CDC.
Do you have any capacity to think at all before you type?
Here's how that would work out. All the Muslim kids will have prayer mats to bow down and pray towards Mecca 5 times a day. Pork will have to be banned in schools for the Jewish kids. Beef will have to be banned in schools for the Hindu kids. Yoga classes for the Buddhist kids.
Oh wait, that's right. My government does not exist so that you can foist your pet religious fantasies on other kids at school. If the government did exist for that reason, you would have the ugly mess outlined in the last paragraph to deal with. Yet, you still don't understand why the public won't vote for your policies at the ballot box, can you? For the life of you, you just can't figure it out.
And really, who cares if life begins at conception. It doesn't mean we should grant rights to the unborn that even born people don't possess, like say, the right to use the body of another without consent. That would negate the legal principle of equal treatment under the law, found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, now wouldn't it. So now we have to throw the Constitution in the garbage so you can create your utopia. Yet, you still can't figure out why the public won't vote your policies in at the ballot box, can you? It's such a ***** mystery. Isn't it?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Alright, finally a good debate.
First I would like to point out a few things.
First, you repeated the same arguements about 10 times or more through this one post. So when I break one down, apply it to every time you repeated it.
Second, I love how Every arguement I give comes from Life starting at conception, and I never move on that ground. And yet you have to change your starting point for each arguement I present because you do not have one solid single sound starting point.
'If I was aborted' 'even if it is a child' 'It isn't a child therefor' 'if it is what about equal treatment' 'who really cares if it is' .
"The truth is in the public forum. It has been for 34 years. Rather than making random claims, which say and mean nothing, why don't you instead provide examples so we can have some idea of what you are talking about here? "
Alright. Truth in the public forum?
How many people going into Planned parenthood knows that margret sanger was a supporter of the KKK, was open and vocal about using PP abortion and contraception to kill off everyone except her little arian utopia. How about anyone realizing that PP hasn't revoked those views in any one document I've seen. (And If they have then they aren't doing much to get it known, because I've looked.)
How about the truth that there have been hundreds of proven cases of PP supporting and abbetting(sp?) Child abuse, rape, and incest. When the courts gave a COURT ORDER for certain files partaining to those cases to be turned over, PP blatantly refused and hasn't even been given a slap on the wrist for refusing to obey a court order. Equal treatment under the law? Are you saying I should be able to commit crimes and hide criminals and not be punished like PP? No seariously, are you saying that?
"Who care if thousands of unborns die? We can reproduce as many of them as we might ever need in petri dishes. Likewise, if a woman aborts today she can be pregnant again tomorrow, next week, next month.
For instance, let's say I had been aborted. No one on the face of this planet, not you, not me, not anyone else, would have ever known the difference, which only proves abortion results in no harm at all."
Whoosh, thats the sound of what I said going over YOUR head.
I don't give a care if we can produce numbers, or if anyone notices someones been aborted. I care that Life starts at conception, and life is being killed. Children are being killed. And all the health problems abortion causes is certainly a harm. Not to mention the DEATH OF THE CHILD..Harm.
"The arguments are falling flat as pancakes because they aren't persuasive, they only convince the gullible and most of all, they are logically invalid, resulting in a situation where the unborn have special rights above and beyond any rights the born people have, which makes them unconstitutional to enact, since it would leave unequal treatment within the law, leaving unborn with far greater rights than born have. ? "
I wan't no such unequal treatment. I didn't say the women had to DIE so that the child might live. I simply said they both should Live. Thats pretty equal. (Especially when the vast majority of abortions are done out of no NEED.)
"As far as life beginning at conception, WHO CARES? If you will die without a kidney transplant, you may not have or use my kidney without my consent. Likewise, an unborn may not use the uterus of another without consent either. If we made it so the unborn could use the body of another without their consent, THEN WE WOULD BE GRANTING RIGHTS TO THE UNBORN THAT BORN PEOPLE DON"T EVEN HAVE"
Consent. Lovely. Glad you brought it up.
If you have sex, what usually happens. PREGNANCY! WOAH!
Now, if you use protection, what can STILL HAPPEN. PREGNANCY.
Weather or not they try to avoid the pregnancy, which many do not, they are still knowingly opening the door. I think legally it MIGHT be called implied consent, not too sure, but I think so. I dunno i'll check on what its legal term is.
Now, even if they ARE using protection, since its LIFE, the scenario is as such.
A woman if she gets pregnant will have an abortion. She has sex, uses protection.
This is no different then me grabbing a gun and instead of aiming at you, I just close my eyes and generally fire in your direction. If I hit you, i'm still responsible. I did the action that caused your death.
"On the other hand, it might well finally turn the public completely against the movement, leaving us viewing you as being in the same category as those who still believe the earth is flat. "
If abortion was such a small unevenly divided issue as you thin, why the hell is it such an issue in elections? hmmm.. Its been everywhere on the news about democrats changing their stance to better their chances for elections. Prominent democrats have been talking about it since kerry lost the election.
"Although you may not be advocating violence yourself, you are just as extreme in your viewpoint, in that what you advocate is the unborn have the right to use the body of another without consent, when neither you nor I have that right. So much for equal treatment under the law."
I advocate the child AND THE MOTHER being allowed to live. Thats pretty equal. Unequal is the mother killing the child for no reason. Even if there is a reason, its still unequal if everything that can be done to save the childs life isn't done.
"WHO CARES? If PP is in violation you report them. It's just that simple. If nothing results from those reports, then the chances are very high the information you have about what PP does was wholly false."
If the information was false, the courts wouldn't have given the order for PP to turn over its files. And since they refused and got in NO trouble, it shows the pointlessness of reporting them in the first place. they are above the law, under equal rights shouldn't I be able to refuse the courts and not get in trouble?
You need to repond.
Either you think PP should be shut down for disobeying the law. Or you believe I should have the right to break any law and not get in trouble, in which cause all your legal claim goes right out the door into anarchy. I guess that would be fine for you since all your arguements have never had the same starting point anyways.
"Seeing PP in black and white terms, much like a 5 year old sees the world, isn't going to win the minds and hearts of the voters to your side, especially amongst the voters who birthed everyone of their kids at PP clinics. Can you grasp that?"
PP uses over six times the amount of money on abortion as they do on non-abortive care. No matter if they do good, they are still mainly focused on killing. They give out condoms in schools that have been rated the worst condoms in the country...Trying to get some income from broken condoms right there.
"So by all means, what possible evidence can you have which proves PP doctors are not informing patients properly about risks of abortion surgeries? If you don't have such evidence will you then step up to the plate and stop spreading these lies?"
I wish I still had the link for a story a young lady posted on facebook forums about this same issue. She stated that when she went in for a consultation the only thing they told her was abortion abortion abortion. She clearly states they mentioned nothing else, and offered nothing else. abortion..
Not to mention if they were truely offering choice then they wouldn't call the cops on me. I followed every law, and actually gave more ground then was legally needed. and the only thing I handed out was a brochure that gave proven statistics onhow many black babies are aborted (this was a minority area) and a sheet of contact lists for other places. The list was not just CPC's but other groups like homes that take the women in for 9 months for only whatever they can afford to pay. and they prepar them for birth, and help them keep the child or find someone to adopt it. the clinic KNOWS thats what I was handing out because many of the women took them inside. I did not screaming (It was less then foolish of you to assume that I did) and I broke no law. I was friendly and gave choices.
"Those people are volunteers not paid. They have as much right to be there as you do. You are just pissed off that as you and your half-wit cohorts start screaming 'baby-killer' at a woman walking into the clinic, they turn up boomboxes so your insults can't be heard. Chances are that woman walking in was planning on birthing her child, not that you would care. Sorry that the public streets don't belong solely to you and your prolife thugs, but our streets are for everyone, not just you and the other killers in the prolife movement."
*sigh* I said "attacked" not "argued" or "distracted". You should get your dictionary out before you come to this forum. In Philly a group was praying and talking to women outside an abortion clinic, PP hired a local gang to attack this group (Who I know some of the people who were in it) and one of the pro-lifers got stabbed. Origionally the police arrested the pro-lifers because PP (who hired the thugs to attack the pro-lifers) claimed that the pro-lifers started the altercation. Not a single pro-lifer there even faught back. Of course the police looked into it and found out what happend, and PP didn't even get a slap on the wrist.
Equality under the law? Do you think I can stab you, or hire someone too, and not get in trouble?
"Take this horse***** somewhere else. I know exactly what you and your cohorts have been doing since the early 80s. Many in our society know it, which is exactly why you can't win the hearts and minds of the public, even aside from the scientifically invalid lies you perpetrate regarding abortion."
My cohorts? Nice. I wasn't alive in the 80's bro. Don't put the sins of the past on me. and don't assume anything. I have been doing only what was legal, no screaming, no graphic signs. and again its less then foolish and childish of you to assume I had with no promptings or hints saying as such. Your assumptions just make you look very sad.
Its obvious you aren't here to discuss, with an open mind. You are here to attack. You think you are better then us, and can attack us. Kinda sad.
"Unborn don't have rights, because they aren't legal persons. You can't take my kidney without my consent, if a transplant will allow you to continue living. Likewise, the unborn can't use the body of another to continue living without consent either. The unborn have the same rights to the body of another that the born have. It's called equal treatment under the law."
When I need your kidney, you aren't the only one I can get it from. you Also didn't make me need the kidney. You also aren't related. You also would sustain lifelong problems from giving up a kidney.
Now with pregnancy.
The mother is the ONLY one who can keep the child alive. She made him need her by creating him. and a woman is only pregnant for 9 months.
Donating an organ and pregnancy are apples and oranges.
Equal treatment here would be that the mother KEEPs the child, the child is born, both are allowed to live, both have their own organs and what no intact. thats equal.
"It's not misinformation to state, had I been aborted, not you, nor anyone else on this planet, would have ever known the difference, which is why we know abortion is morally neutral. It's the truth, plain and simple."
Can you name every single person who has been killed in all of history? I assume you must be able to, since you made it clear that for killing to be wrong it must be known. Right? Start the naming, or do you think murder is morally neutral?
"We can still give those millions to help poor kids, by taking it away from the pregnancy resource centers backed by the prolifers who lie and deceive women regarding the risks of abortion, in order to rob them of having any choice at all. "
Okay..Lets look at the logic here.
the Vast majority of CPCs and other things as such are not backed financially very well. PP gets millions of dollars a year.
So, you think the starving children only need a little bit of money? admit it, you don't give a care about the starving children. You brought it up to try to cast a shadow on pro-lifers, but the second the hint of money being taken away from PP comes into play..well then the starving children aren't THAT important.
Pathetic.
Lets take the little bit of money given to one group, leave the LARGE amount given to the other group, and lets feed the starving children with what is pennies in compairison to the largely funded group.
"in order to rob them of having any choice at all"
PP gives two choice. Abortion, or not.
I give for.
Have sex, don't have sex.
Keep the child, give it up for adoption.
I think choices that DON'T kill people are a good thing.
"Let's cut all faith-based funding and all prolife pregnancy centers off at the knees by legislating that no medical clinic may continue operation unless it provides scientifically factual information to its patients. How about that? "
Woah buddy, CPC's ect generally aren't medical clinics.. Get your facts right bro.
Now, as scientifically factual, you mean the scientifically factual information that YOU LIKE. right? Cause thats what I am getting here.
Lets NOT tell the women about the stages of development, how early the unborn feel pain, lets NOT give the women sonograms so they can SEE what they are killing. Hmm..
"What's up with your television? Are you still on rabbit ears? It ran all day long, across at least two days, if I remember correctly. Why are you lying about it? Do you think lying about it will win the hearts and minds of the public? "
Well, I live in MD, and every single person who I talked to who didn't go said that WJZ and every other news station didn't even mention it...hmm.
I didn't see ONE news station chopper or tvcamera while I was there either.
"Do you have any capacity to think at all before you type?
Here's how that would work out. All the Muslim kids will have prayer mats to bow down and pray towards Mecca 5 times a day. Pork will have to be banned in schools for the Jewish kids. Beef will have to be banned in schools for the Hindu kids. Yoga classes for the Buddhist kids.
And really, who cares if life begins at conception. It doesn't mean we should grant rights to the unborn that even born people don't possess, like say, the right to use the body of another without consent. That would negate the legal principle of equal treatment under the law, found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, now wouldn't it. So now we have to throw the Constitution in the garbage so you can create your utopia. "
Your government is already doing that.
Muslims bhuddists satanists occultists (yes there is a difference between the two) jewish ect all have clubs and funding and school support.
Their koran, 'bibles'(occultists), scriptures and what not are all on library shelves.
Pro-life students have to get LAWERS to get the schools to back off on the students day of silence, or when they wear pro-life shirts.
Shirts with profanity, alcohol, drugs, weapons, ect are all ok. but a pro-life shirt gets kids suspended until they get a lawer. how fair is that? Taking God out of the pledge of allegance..hmm.
If they can teach evolution, they can also teach creationism as theory, and let the kids choose for themself. That covers all bases in two theories.
You say you want equality under the law... but you don't really.
you don't want pro-lifers to be heard just as loud, you don't want equal funding, you don't want PP to be punished when it breaks the law, you don't want choice, you don't want truth. You want people who disagree to shut up and lie down and die. You want everyone to think that pro-lifers are stupid (like you have stated) that we are violent (like you have stated) that we are all the same (like you have stated) that we are against truth (like you have stated) and I could go on.
do NOT debate unless you REALLY are openminded. Which you are not.You just want attention, and to be given a pat on the back and told you are totally completely and 100% right.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the fray, Faith. Fetal Lisa is what I call a "trash poster" because she just posts trash, or rather she throws it at us. I've had her on ignore for several weeks, and the forum has looked much better. You won't find any real "debate" in her posts, just trash.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Sure you have. You bore false witness against Yodavater. You also made a false claim about the babies saved by lethal defense.
Again, your ignorance of the Hill case shines through. Many other baby killers quite when Hill defended with his shot gun. More lives saved. Additionally, the abortury had flown in the last circuit ridding baby killer the abortuary was not able to find another willing to take the risk for several weeks, more babies saved. Also there were no other killing centers in close proximity to do the killing making it difficult for many of those seeking to kill to get to someone willing to do this evil deed. More babies saved.
Show me where anyone has implied any such thing! No one has said this is the best tactic. Only that it is a tactic worthy of consideration.
No. You are not being fair at all.
In your haste to know what is being debated, you have failed to understand what others have said and not said. In your ignorant state, you have made false claims about posters here, and about Hill's actions, and make implications that the debate is over the "best" way to stop abortions.
I think you should pay closer attention to the facts of this case. I hope this thread will help you gather some of these facts.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2448&enterthread=y
I have had several such reports myself. They are separate lives saved and do not take away from the life saved by Paul Hill's shot gun blasts.

Morals are not relative. That is the entire point of defensive action. If we can use lethal force to defend the born then morality says lethal force is acceptable to defend the unborn.
Why do you discriminate against the unborn?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

"Sure you have. You bore false witness against Yodavater. You also made a false claim about the babies saved by lethal defense."
I misunderstood yodavater,It was not intentional.Apologies.
I made the claim about babies saved by lethal defense in a general way.
you are correct I didn't know the information for this specific situation.
BUT in most situations like this the information I gave is generally correct.
My point was only that It is not the best idea. I was under the impression that you were saying basically "If you aren't for the killing of abortionists, you aren't really that prolife."
The thread you posted, though I disagree with the morality of the action, does clarify where you are coming from.
So we are both saying that its not the best way, we simply disagree on if its an acceptable way.
Something that you have yet to respond to (or I have missed your response) is that A. Abortionists still have souls we need to try to save. and B. abortionists who DO convert do such amazing good for the movement.
My personal oppinion is simply that by killing an abortionist you are not only playing God, but not allowing God to work his wonders in the way his plan intends.
I could debate with you on the morality of this, but I will admit I do not believe my oppinion would change, and I do not believe yours would either.
I certainly do NOT discriminate against the unborn.

reply from: fetalisa

Gee, I am sorry you didn't know that as you bring different points to the table, I will bring different points in response. I am sorry that's so difficult for you to handle.
Irrelevant. Many present day Christian denominations supported slavery, but don't today. Organizations can and do change over time, particularly once the founder is dead.
Proof? Proof regarding government action taken against PP due to this Arian conspiracy would be particularly appreciated.
Proof? Who brought the claims? What is it a prolife group? Were the claims similar to those brought against Tiller, ie, totally bogus? Why did they refuse to turn over the records? Was it due to the patient's right to privacy? So all they got was a slap on the wrist, right? Sounds like the charges were bogus. I will withhold judgment until you come forth with proof.
Well pin a fraggin' rose on you. Life begins at conception. So what? All you have done here is prove you have an opinion held in common with a minority fringe extremist group within our society. Prove the life that exists at conception is morally equivalent to the life of the born and you will have something (that no prolifer have ever been able to produce.)
Based on whose data - the Elliott Institute or the CDC? What health problems are you talking about? I've not a clue to what you are referring. All you have done here is make vague assertions while offering nothing to back up what you say. I am well aware of the statistics on file with the CDC, which directly contradicts the vague assertions you make here.
I've no reason to consider an unborn the moral equivalent of a born child, until and unless you offer a valid argument why it should be considered as such.
The end result isn't equal at all. In fact, the end result is unconstitutional. You can't use my kidney without my consent, in spite of the fact you will die without it. Those not born can't use a uterus without the consent of the owner, in spite of the fact they will die without it. If we allow the unborn to use the uterus of another without consent, then we have granted them rights born people don't enjoy. That's unequal treatment under the law and also unconstitutional.
Personal opinion having no bearing on our law nor our society. All you have done here is shown you hold what is essentially a religious opinion shared by a minority extremist fringe group within our society.
Likewise.
There is no legal principle in our law which states consent to pregnancy equals consent to child birth. All you have shown here is you hold what is essentially a religious opinion, which sounds quite Catholic. In other words, you believe sex should result in procreation. Well good for you and me. Our government does not exist to enforce your pet religious fantasies on the population at large.
In the last century, we humans were finally able to decouple sex from reproduction, using birth control and abortion. If a legal principle existed in our law that stated sex implies consent to child birth, both birth control and abortion would be illegal. Therefore, you claim that sex implies consent to child birth, is pure fantasy on your part.
Now you can live as if birth control or abortion was never invented and live your life as if it were 1930. Hell, the Amish do it year round. But you can't use our government to force the rest of us to live this way.
Exactly! And just because the door is opened, it doesn't mean they have to walk through it. You believe sex should be for procreation only. You believe consent to sex equals to consent to child birth. Your pet religious fantasies aren't the basis of our law. Our government does not exist to foist your pet religious fantasies on the population at large.
You can't be that naive. Because people like McCain will publically say they want Roe overturned, when they know good and well the legal and constitutional reasons why it won't happen. But if he says so while the cameras are pointed at him, all of the lifers will vote for him in one block, like the borg. Once he exits the office, none can accuse him of lying, because he said he wanted it overturned, not that he would.
Don't you get it? Why are all your cohorts on this board griping that neither Bush nor the republicans have done a thing for the prolife movement. They told you what you wanted to hear to gain your votes, then forgot about you until the next election. You are being played like a fiddle by the politicians and it works every time. All they have to do is lather, rinse & repeat.
And the only way that can happen is if the unborn has the right to use the uterus of a woman without her consent. That's a right born people don't presently have and never have had in the entire history of our society.
You've yet to prove an unborn is the moral equivalent of a born child. Saying life begins at conception, pointing out the unique DNA sequence of an unborn or claiming an unborn is separate from the bother, provides no reason at all for me to consider an unborn the moral equivalent of a born child.
You don't know that. It could be they refused to turn over the files to protect the privacy of the patients, which would be a very valid legal reason to refuse.
You, my friend, are a victim of the false dichotomy, when you state it must be either A or it must be B. It could well be also C, D, E, F or G. We don't know that PP disobeyed the law. If they refused to turn over patient records because some other law guarantees the right of privacy for patients, then they were well within the law. Nice trick in pretending there could only be 2 possible outcomes though.
Well I am sorry it is so difficult for you to keep up with more than one argument at a time.
Proof?
Proof?
Right. You have no evidence. Just as I suspected.
Who cares if they called the cops. You were obeying the law, according to you, which means the cops can do nothing. Since the cops could do nothing, no harm came from it. So why are you complaining?
Proof? Or is this another story posted of facebook that has since disappearred?
I know my arguments are better, because they are both logically and legally valid. The public is centrist as well, having never enjoyed the fringe extremists.
The fact remains it doesn't matter if anyone calls the cops on you. If you've violated no laws, you've no need to care one whit about anyone calling the cops on you, because they can't do anything if you are obeying the law. It's that simple.
Irrelevant. If born people don't have the right to use the body of another without consent, neither should an unborn. Claiming a woman consents to birth when she consents to sex is a religious notion having no basis in our law, which makes the claim legally unenforcable.
The principles are the same. It would be unconstitutional to allow an unborn to use the body or part of a body of another without consent, if the born can't do the same. The born don't have that right and neither should the unborn.
That's unequal, because the unborn would have rights above and beyond the rights the born have.
Yet another point flies right over your head. I will chalk up to the confusion and difficulty you experience in attempting to follow more than one point at a time in an argument.
My point has nothing to do with whether something is known or not. It's really very simple. The only morals in our society all are obligated to follow are our laws. You can follow religious morals in addition to our laws, but I am only obligated to follow our laws, not your personally held religious-based morals.
So, when it comes to our laws, how do we determine if something is morally good or bad? It's very simple. We look at the results of any given action. For instance, drunk driving is against the law because if you do it, you could hit another car and kill or maim someone. That's why it's illegal.
Now, had I been aborted, not a soul on this planet would have known the difference. The life of everyone is the exact same as it was after I was aborted, as it was before I was aborted. Therefore, abortion isn't morally wrong and our laws should reflect that, which they do. If I steal from you, your life is impacted because something that was once in your life is gone. That's morally wrong. If I had been aborted, however, your life is not impacted at all. You lose nothing from your life you didn't have before, unlike if I steal from you. That's my point.
Irrelevant. You need to address the issue raised of the prolife backed PRCs providing false information to patients in claiming abortions cause breast cancer and leave you infertile, etc. If the prolife position and arguments are so strong, why do these PRCs have to lie to patients?
What is pathetic here is I have provided documentation in the form of a link (not some nonexistent BS story that used to be on facebookm but isn't anymore), which proves prolife backed PRCs are lying to patients regarding the risks of abortion. Instead of addressing this very valid and very well documented claim (scientific study actually) you wish to change the subject and hurl accusations at me.
It's very simple. I don't want one dime of my tax dollars to go to medical organizations who lie about the risks of abortion by telling patients things that totally contradict all known scientific data on file with the CDC. Can you grasp that at all?
Then you do get it. The group that lies doesn't get the funds. I know you claim the other group lied, but when pressed for proof all you came up with was nothing, in the form of some hearsay story that used to be on facebook. Additionally, you are personally ticked at PP because they called the cops on you. Whereas, with the prolife PRCs, I have provided documented evidence that they are spreading lies. You provide no evidence for your claim.
You can live your life with whatever fanciful religious notion you choose. Our government does not exist so that you can foist your personally chosen fanciful religious notions on the rest of us, however. There are many who don't believe as you, which is one reason why abortion is still legal.
Or abort.
Neither you, nor anyone else in the prolife movement, have yet to offer one single argument that proves an unborn is morally equivalent to the born. If you lifers had ever done such, abortion would have been banned years ago. So you can claim abortion kills a person all you want, just like you can claim PP forces abortion on people. Until you offer proof of what you say, like by showing how an unborn is morally equivalent to a born, neither I, nor any in our society, will ever be convinced of your position, which means abortion will aways be legal.
Can you not read? I plainly stated anything from the CDC is acceptable, but only because I know their data is genuine.
Get real. It can be so much easier than that. Construct an argument to convince the public of your position, that is legal, constitutional, logically indisputable, etc, and you won't have a need to tell these things to every single pregnant woman, because the public will vote your ideas into law. Don't you think that's much easier? So where's that argument? We have been waiting for 34 years.
It was on in it's entirety. Oh well, there goes your claim the movement is dying due to lack of media coverage. You might get to work on that indisputable argument to get the votes of the public.
Wrong! Evolution is fact and theory. Creationism is hypothesis. Hypothesis means a guess someone pulled out one's behind. Hypotheses aren't science and therefore, have no place in a science class room. Read the Dover, PA school board case and you will understand it, I assure you.
You couldn't be more wrong. The prolife arguments are the best possible means to keep abortion legal.
Not for PRCs who spread lies which contradict CDC data, I sure don't.
You haven't proven PP broke the law. You can claim anything you wish. I am not obligated to believe your claims without proof.
I believe birthing, adoption or abortion should all be choices. Surrogacy too.
Sure I do. That's why I don't want prolife PRCs who lie to patients and contradict CDC data to be punished. It's established fact they lie in 87% of all tested cases. You have the proof for that.
Why would I want you to shut up when I personally believe the prolife arguments are the best thing going to keep abortion legal?
No, the arguments are stupid.
You need to check the first page of threads on these forums where they are making a case for killing more doctors, then get back to me on that, ok?
The arguments are still the same, even though they haven't worked for 34 years. (I mean they haven't worked for the prolife side. They've certainly benefited the prochoice side, however.)
The prolife PRCs are against truth. That's documented fact for which I have already provided solid proof.
How can I not think you are personally against truth? You claimed PP forced abortion on people. When I ask you for proof you say you don't have it any more because it was on facebook and it's gone. Why should I therefore believe you if you say PP forces abortion on people? I mean, if PP was doing this as a matter of course, surely it would have happened to more than that one person on facebook. So where's the evidence? If you have none, why should I believe your claim was truthful?
It's a free country. You don't have to debate me. You can't handle more than one point at on time anyway. There's no need to stress yourself out over an online debate, ya know?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

"Gee, I am sorry you didn't know that as you bring different points to the table, I will bring different points in response. I am sorry that's so difficult for you to handle. "
How did such a simple concept go over your head.
By changing your starting stance each time, you contradict yourself. Everytime you say "even if it is a child" it contradicts every arguement you have made where it isn't. So you need to choose ONE starting point, and try to redo all those arguements you made with your ADD starting points, and see if you can actually make them cohesive.
"Irrelevant. Many present day Christian denominations supported slavery, but don't today. Organizations can and do change over time, particularly once the founder is dead."
but Those christian denominations have clearly refuted the view that was no longer held.
"Proof? Who brought the claims? What is it a prolife group? Were the claims similar to those brought against Tiller, ie, totally bogus? Why did they refuse to turn over the records? Was it due to the patient's right to privacy? So all they got was a slap on the wrist, right? Sounds like the charges were bogus. I will withhold judgment until you come forth with proof"
The proof was found by a pro-life group who followed every letter of the law to obtain the proof.and the courts then found the proof acceptible and ordered the documents be turned over. A court order overrides privledged material.
and yes, I can give you a LOTmore.
Proof? http://www.childpredators.com/ReadReport.cfm
http://www.childpredators.com/
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Video/CrossTalk12302003_cut.m3u
http://www.childpredators.com/Tapes.cfm
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Baby_Body_Parts/
http://www.parentalalert.com/
http://traditionalvalues.org/1/pph/

Proof for women being harmed by abortion?
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/

You should really check out lifedynamics.com its VERY BLATANTLY pro-life, but it follows all laws and boundries and backs up everything it says.
"Well pin a fraggin' rose on you. Life begins at conception. So what? All you have done here is prove you have an opinion held in common with a minority fringe extremist group within our society. Prove the life that exists at conception is morally equivalent to the life of the born and you will have something (that no prolifer have ever been able to produce.) "
Alright. For me to talk about this, i need to hear why you think it ISN'T. Then I can refute it from there.
"I've no reason to consider an unborn the moral equivalent of a born child, until and unless you offer a valid argument why it should be considered as such"
Give me a valid reason why it ISN'T.
"The end result isn't equal at all. In fact, the end result is unconstitutional. You can't use my kidney without my consent, in spite of the fact you will die without it. Those not born can't use a uterus without the consent of the owner, in spite of the fact they will die without it. If we allow the unborn to use the uterus of another without consent, then we have granted them rights born people don't enjoy. That's unequal treatment under the law and also unconstitutional. "
I said sex gives the consent.It opens the door to pregnancy.
you said yes, but not to birth.
Now, you agreed to pregnancy. Pregnancy is the only time the child needs the uterus.
Now let me guess, you didn't mean it was consent to pregnancy. right?
"Personal opinion having no bearing on our law nor our society. All you have done here is shown you hold what is essentially a religious opinion shared by a minority extremist fringe group within our society. "
Really, I didn't realize i presented any such thing. I simply pointed out that abortion is generally done out of vanity and not need.
"There is no legal principle in our law which states consent to pregnancy equals consent to child birth."
Yes...But were discussing in utero here. By consenting to the right to pregnancy, or even the chance of it, it DOES give the right to the uterus since the uterus is only needed during pregnancy.
If personhood and life doesn't start at conception, where does it?
At what point does a unborn child get the right to life?
what happens between that moment and a second previous?
"You don't know that. It could be they refused to turn over the files to protect the privacy of the patients, which would be a very valid legal reason to refuse."
Only valid if there was no court order.
Privledge simply protects the common person getting medical facts for no reason.
"You, my friend, are a victim of the false dichotomy, when you state it must be either A or it must be B. It could well be also C, D, E, F or G. We don't know that PP disobeyed the law. If they refused to turn over patient records because some other law guarantees the right of privacy for patients, then they were well within the law. Nice trick in pretending there could only be 2 possible outcomes though. "
Now that I've shown there is no reason to allow them to not turn over the docuements, it means youare for or against what I said.
So, now anwser the question.
"PP uses over six times the amount of money on abortion as they do on non-abortive care."
Pro-life anwsers to Pro-choice questions. The newest edition is something like 2003. Its a book. Don't believe me? read it. I've read pro-choice books, so you should try reading a pro-life book. The author's name is something like randy alcorn.
"Who cares if they called the cops. You were obeying the law, according to you, which means the cops can do nothing. Since the cops could do nothing, no harm came from it. So why are you complaining? "
You are blatantly avoiding the point there. Not even dancing around it...your running away from it.
I said they called the cops which shows they really aren't interested in choice. Weather or not I was following the law (Which I was) is irrelivent. They called the cops to try to stop me from offering choices. How pro-choice is that?
"Battery, Malpractice and Violation of Constitutional Rights
In a landmark victory that must have sent shivers all through the pro-abortion movement, abortionist Charles Benjamin settled out of court in October 2003 because he did not properly inform one of his patients about the link between abortion and breast cancer.
When 16-year-old Pennsylvania teenager "Sarah" became pregnant, her high school guidance counselor arranged for a secret second-trimester abortion just across the border in New Jersey without her parents' knowledge. Pennsylvania requires the consent of at least one parent for a teenager to have an abortion; New Jersey has no such requirement.
Now 22, Sarah has suffered tremendously in the aftermath of her abortion. Sarah is not afflicted with breast cancer (yet), but she sued the abortion mill because it failed to inform her of the possible risk. An overwhelming majority of studies have shown that induced abortions increase the risk of contracting the disease.
Sarah's attorneys say she must now obtain expensive mammograms at an earlier age because she could contract breast cancer earlier than the average woman. She also was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder following the abortion. Doctors estimated that the cost of the mammograms alone would be $2,500 annually. The settlement also includes funding to cover future psychological counseling."
http://abortionviolence.com/PA.HTM
the rest of that article is a little less then halfway down the page. just text search for one sentence.
"Death Threat
On June 21, 1980, Jean Neary was sidewalk counseling outside the Northeast Women's Center abortuary. She approached a couple proceeding to the abortion mill, and the man first shouted at her and cursed her, then pulled aside his coat to reveal a holstered pistol. He asked Neary "Do you see this?" She answered "You can shoot me, but what you will be doing to your baby is much worse." The man was an off-duty policeman from nearby Morrisville.
Reference: "Jane Neary Threatened By Gunman." National Right to Life News, July 7, 1980, page 10."
Same website, further down the page.
Not only can I supply proof of the people attacked outside abortion clinics, I can give you thousands of other proven stories.
"Now, had I been aborted, not a soul on this planet would have known the difference."
You without consent would have been deprived of your own right to life. It effected YOU.
"Irrelevant. You need to address the issue raised of the prolife backed PRCs providing false information to patients in claiming abortions cause breast cancer and leave you infertile, etc. If the prolife position and arguments are so strong, why do these PRCs have to lie to patients?"
I presented proof of many things CPC's say that you call a lie.
Now you will say you don't believe the studies simply because you don't like them.
Like most pro-choicers do. Right?
Or will you MAYBE look into it with an open mind. Maybe?
"It's very simple. I don't want one dime of my tax dollars to go to medical organizations who lie about the risks of abortion by telling patients things that totally contradict all known scientific data on file with the CDC. Can you grasp that at all?'
So Now ive shown those centers aren't as full oflies as you claim. should they get more funding?
"You can live your life with whatever fanciful religious notion you choose. Our government does not exist so that you can foist your personally chosen fanciful religious notions on the rest of us, however. There are many who don't believe as you, which is one reason why abortion is still legal. "
Your rights only work if they don't interfere with someone elses rights. So if you have sex, and are going to kill the child created, then your right is infringing on someone elses right.
"Get real. It can be so much easier than that. Construct an argument to convince the public of your position, that is legal, constitutional, logically indisputable, etc, and you won't have a need to tell these things to every single pregnant woman, because the public will vote your ideas into law. Don't you think that's much easier? So where's that argument? We have been waiting for 34 years"
So you don't like showing the women those REAL FACTS AND IMAGES because they do the exact thing we say they will do, so instead you want us to use a means to have claimed is faulty so that we can't present the truth? Wow thats sad.

reply from: JohnGlenn

So you were in error here.
So you werein error again.
So again you were in error.
Perhaps you ought not make false judgments without the facts.
Defensive killings were acceptable to God. Take Moses for example.
That's the difference between you and me. I am willing to change if scripture shows me it is wrong.
I don't believe you.
If those defended by Hill had been 6 year olds on a school yard, you would feel differently about their lethal defense.
Do you condemn the defensive action that killed the mall sniper in Utah last week? Do you condemn the killing of those on flight 93 in defense of self and others? Do you condemn the killings of Phinehas, Ehud and Moses? I dare to say you do not condemn those defensive killings, yet you do condemn the killing of a baby killer in defense of the unborn.
Face the facts man, you DO discriminate against the unborn.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Actually, I'm not anti-abortion, because God naturally aborts some children by miscarriage. I have never claimed to be prolife either, since I am in favor of the death penalty (since scripture teaches it) for capital offenses before God.
I consider myself an anti-baby-killing advocate.
Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Moses was a murderer in God's eyes for killing the unjust Egyptian task master in defense of the Jew slave?

reply from: RobertFerguson

"All you have are lies? Bearing a false witness is one of God's top ten. It must be difficult to have no substantial response to advocating equal defense for the preborn.
You have not been here long enough to make such a claim.
Probably your tactic is to bear a false witness and lie when you do not have the facts.
A mother wrote to thank Paul Hill for saving her son from abortion the day he shot the baby killer. She named her son Paul in honor of Hill. "
What does that have to do with admonishing you to post truthful statements?
BTW
Make posts less than a few pages in length if you wish to get some debate. They are waaaaaaaaaay too long for most to bother to read.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Right, shoter posts help people to actually read his points without going to sleep. Especially if they are going to be full of fiction rather than fact.

reply from: RobertFerguson

This one is taking her seriously. His last post filled my screen 5 times and with all the qoutes without stating who is quoted... well, I skip right over this sort fo post.

reply from: RobertFerguson

That is why I asked, I thought I probaly was taking it the wrong way, but just in the case that I didn't misunderstand I had to mention it.
What are you talking about? You just had to huh? You did not ask until you were called on the carpet for posting mistruths.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Ok, let's apply the test
How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Does this endorsement include the LDI investigation of James Kopp not having shot the baby killer?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

First off.Each of the times you stated I was in error was just a foolish move. I WAS THE ONE WHO STATED I WAS IN ERROR. All you did by stating it again and again was make yourself look like a jerk..Very upstanding of you.
"Perhaps you ought not make false judgments without the facts. "
Let you without sin cast the first stone.
"That's the difference between you and me. I am willing to change if scripture shows me it is wrong."
The bible tells us to obey the laws of the land..Now many of our laws are off base E.G. abortion.
But a man about to shoot someone, anyone, out on a lawn is legal to be killed.
Let me put it to you this way.
If the abortionist is in his office at his desk, not about to kill an unborn child, I don't believe its moral to kill him. I believe that every single moment before he is about to kill the child you have an obligation to try to save his soul, change his mind, and help him see the truth.
I can assume a man who has killed before will kill again, but until the moment before he does occurs I believe morally I can only try to save him.
The bible allows justified murder. But look at all the situations in which case the murder was commited.
So, my view, you can kill an abortion doctor in the EXACT same situation as any other person. Right before the act is commited. until that point you can only try to change thier minds.
Plus you are forgetting Gods endless love forgiveness and mercy.
"Actually, I'm not anti-abortion, because God naturally aborts some children by miscarriage. I have never claimed to be prolife either, since I am in favor of the death penalty (since scripture teaches it) for capital offenses before God.
I consider myself an anti-baby-killing advocate.
Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Moses was a murderer in God's eyes for killing the unjust Egyptian task master in defense of the Jew slave?"
I do no claim to know Gods mind or choices.
I personally don't believe Gods plan is for miscarriages to occur.
I am also in favor of the death penalty.
I believe that there was certainly other ways to stop the egyptian task master then killing him, killing him was extreme, but justifiable.
Now. Would it not have been better to restrain an abortionist, to cut off his hands, to kidnap him, something else then killing him.
To find a way where you are not taking his life, you are not ending his chance for repentance, and still stopping him from killing the unborn.
I believe that the only situation in which killing the abortion doctor would be okay is again, right before the act.God can change his mind at any time...So basically I say give the time to see if God is going to change his mind until it is obvious that you are the only means (weather God is using you to or not which I cannot say) to stop that murder.
"What does that have to do with admonishing you to post truthful statements?
BTW
Make posts less than a few pages in length if you wish to get some debate. They are waaaaaaaaaay too long for most to bother to read. "
I just thought it was a foolish sentiment ment to undermine any validity to what I said based on my time of activity on this forum.
And if someone is intelligent enough to debate something this searious, they can deal with reading a long post.My computer won't allow memore then 1 post before it stops loading this page. So I have one shot to say it all.
"Right, shoter posts help people to actually read his points without going to sleep. Especially if they are going to be full of fiction rather than fact."
Was there any point to that comment other then a childish attempt to hide an insult?
"This one " ... Wow, shows a lot of respect for others.
Do you really respect life, or just your own and how self-important you feel?
"How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?"
I have made it CLEAR that I believe a child has a right to life from conception.
Intentionally ignoring that view to re-ask a question to insinuate that I am something other then what I have said I am is just pathetic.
"Does this endorsement include the LDI investigation of James Kopp not having shot the baby killer?"
I did clearly state that I view their facts are solid and well backed up.
I have not been able to view everything on that website, including that investigation, but I'd assume it is sound since everything elseI've seen on there so far has been sound.
Can you link me to it please?
Also, instead of insulting the way I speak on the forum why not explain to me how to do things correctly.It would be more beneficial then being rude.
If you skip my posts because you do not like the way I quote, you should probably tell me the proper way to quote since its obvious I haven't figured out how to cause that nifty indentation and quoted post.
Thanks much.
For Christ I stand,
Keith

reply from: fetalisa

My stance has not changed at any point throughout this discussion. You would have to be blind to not see that.
Whether PP refutes the claims of Sanger doesn't matter. Do you have any evidence PP is operating from the standpoint of an Arian conspiracy today? I asked for evidence. You've yet to produce it. All you are doing here is making claims. Anyone can make any claim. I've no reason to believe any claim you can't actually prove. You are a mud-slinger as far as PP. You wish to demonize them in your mud-slinging, but your claims become dissipating vapor without evidence.
You need two things; First, you need to learn what is and is not evidence. Second, you need to learn the difference between biased and unbiased sources. One example where this can easily be shown is in your first link. The link claims a study was done wherein someone called PP pretending to be a 13 year old pregnant by a 22 year old. It goes on to make wild claims regarding what was said on the phone. Yet, nowhere in the footnotes will you find a link on the study, the methods used for the study, etc.
Here's an example with footnotes;
'We have uncovered an overwhelming body of statistical evidence showing that the rate at which these two organizations fail to comply with mandatory reporting laws is in excess of 90 percent. This data was obtained from government sources, medical journals, independent researchers and the abortion industry itself.26'
Yet, when we look at the footnotes for point 26, we see;
Planned Parenthood tax filings for 1999.
Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 1999.
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 1998.
"Facts In Brief: Contraceptive Services,"
"Youth Risk Behavior
Sex By Age, P14: Sex By Age for the Population Under 20 Years, PCT12: Sex By Age, http://www.census.gov.

Not a one of these sources offer any proof at all of failure to comply with mandatory reporting requirements. PP tax filings definitely wouldn't have such information. It's not only logically inconsistent to claim PP tax filings would show it, but ridiculous to suggest it would. Data from the US census could well show rates of sex for kids, but would tell us nothing about mandatory reporting laws.
So all you have here is hearsay constructed to smear PP. This is not a valid scientific study in any way, shape or form. How do we know this? Because the police could easily call PP with the same scenario and bust PP. We see shows on television very week where cops are catching child molesters using this exact same technique.
In other words, nothing on that page is evidence for the claims made on the page at all.
As far as your sources, every single one is from a prolife website, which means your sources are biased. If something of this scale were occurring, it would be occurring repeatedly. Articles could easily be located in say, the New York Times, LA Times, etc.
This website, which you also used in your last list of links, is full of deceptions and falsehoods;
"Abortion clinic operators like Planned Parenthood like to pretend that the decision written by Justice Blackmun made abortions safe and legal,"
This is so wrong on so many counts, it's difficult to decide where to begin. First of all, no law can make ANY surgery safe. For instance, if the death rate from boob jobs was 50%, a law that made them legal, would not change the death rate of 50%. To pretend that abortion clinic doctors, or anyone, for that matter, would believe a law would change the death rate of a surgery is absurd, in addition to being a total falsehood. But let's assume the death rate from boob jobs were 50%. No law to make them legal could make it through congress, because the doctors AND the public would fight tooth and nail to legalize a surgery with a death rate of 50%.
In other words, if the death rate to the mother was 50% in cases of abortion, abortion would still be banned. Indeed, in our country in the 1800s, it was the doctors who worked to ban abortions for precisely this reason. Abortion techniques in the 1800s were deadly to the mother, which is why the doctors worked to have them banned. This is why the idea the Roe decision made abortions safe is absurd. Abortion could not become legal unless and until abortion techniques improved such that they were no longer deadly to the mother.
The other complete lie here is that PP is pretending the Roe decision made abortion legal. The Roe decision DID make abortion legal. That's an indisputable legal FACT. None who states it are pretending.
I can't believe you would dare to trot out such trash as this to defend your position. Not only is the information on this link completely false, it leaves one wondering if the prolife arguments are so valid, why are such outright lies and deceptions necessary to support the prolife view? If one's arguments are sound, one need never resort to lies. Such lies cause the movement to lose ALL credibility with the public, insuring your views will never be implemented by the public.
The only thing blatant on that website are the lies they are telling as I have already proven above.
Because if you kill my mom, I suffer the loss of a person whom I have known for years. Whereas, if I had been aborted, none on the planet would ever have known the difference, including me. If I steal from you, you suffer the loss of whatever it was I stole. Whereas, if a woman has an abortion, your life is no different after her abortion than it was before.
That's your opinion. If you wish to see the laws changed, then it must be done legally. There is no legal principle that states consent to sex equals consent to a birthed child. That's a religious idea and our government does not exist to force your pet religious ideas on all in our society.
Birth control alone proves consent to sex DOES NOT equal consent to a birthed child. Additionally, it is absolutely stupid, childish and naive to claim consent to sex equals consent to a birthed child. One could choose to have sex simply for the widely documented health benefits alone. One could choose to have sex to celebrate the bond with their partner. There are NUMEROUS reason one might want to have sex. To claim the only possible reason to have sex is to birth a child is childish and naive, in addition to being a legal fallacy. And if you wish to change the law on abortion, it can ONLY happen via sound legal principles and not because your pet religious fantasy teaches sex is only for procreation.
Boob jobs are done out of vanity and not need. Who cares?
That's your opinion. There is no legal principle to be found in our law which supports it either. If you wish to change the law, you will do it based on legal principle, not your hair-brained idea that sex must result in a live birth in every case.
Presently, personhood begins at viability. I have never argued that life doesn't start at conception. I only wish to know by what reasoning can the life which exists at conception be considered morally equivalent to one already born.
Viability.
Certain rights are granted. You seem to have difficulty with the arbitrary nature of law.
Well until you offer valid proof from an unbiased source, I am hardly going to take your word for it.
Nope. Patient privacy protects the medical history of common people from being abused by those with an agenda.
You've shown no such thing, outside of a smear campaign against PP, full of all sorts of lies and falsehoods. Further, you haven't disproven PP was able to withhold the records for the purposes of protecting patients' privacy. Actually, I still have no clue what you are so upset about, because you have yet to provide an unbiased and legitimate source that tells me what happened in this case, why the records were demanded, why the records were held, and every other pertinent fact that would allow me to see, know and understand what in the hell you are going on about.
So everyone of your sources is biased. What else is new? Is that book as full of lies as the websites you have already linked here? Does that book also claim a law can change the risk rate of a surgery? Once again, you make a claim about PP, yet provide no evidence, which means I have no reason to believe your claim. Surely the statistics would be more readily available somewhere on the web.
Oh you have made your point very clear here. PP called the cops on you which pissed you off. In order to exact your revenge on PP for doing this, you have chosen to conduct a smear campaign against them personally, in addition to participating in a smear campaign already set in motion by the fringe, extremist group known as the prolifers. In other words, nothing you say against PP can be taken seriously because the only reason you say it is to pay them back for calling the cops on you.
It's nonsensical. PP can't force women to have abortions who don't want them. So it's ridiculous for you to suggest if you weren't there women won't have a choice. Women have a choice by law, not because you've nothing better to do with your time besides hang out outside a PP clinic.
There is no link between abortion and breast cancer, according to the CDC. Perhaps you've heard of them?
What does this have to do with this discussion? Nothing at all. Next?
You've yet to provide even a single example from a non-biased, legitmate source. What you have provided so far directly contradicts the data on file with the CDC. And really, if abortion did cause an increased risk of breast cancer (which it doesn't), who cares? Driving a car of flying by plane increases risk of death too. I don't see you wishing cars and planes were illegal.
I would have never known the difference, which means no harm is done. How could I have given or withheld consent while in the womb anyway? You are being silly.
All of which contradicts all known scientific data. You really need to educate yourself on what constitutes valid scientific data. Additionally, who cares if abortion did increase risk of breast cancer. The use of cars and planes increases risk of death too. So what?
I don't believe them because they contradict the CDC, who KNOW what they are saying and doing when it comes to science.
You've proven no such thing unless and until you can offer a valid argument why we should ignore the data of the CDC, which you can't and won't do.
The 'right to life' for the unborn is imaginary. There is no such right within our law. Unborn are not entitled to any constitutional rights, including a right to life. The Constitution addresses born persons in every single instance where the word 'person' or 'persons' appears within it. The Constitution addresses rights that only born people can enjoy, in every single right discussed. Or do you seriously expect me to believe freedoms of speech and religion have any application at all to the unborn?
Don't be ridiculous. All I am saying is it should be a simple thing to get abortion banned if the prolife arguments are so convincing. If that were to happen, there'd be no need for you to waste your free time hanging outside of abortion clinics flashing pictures of alleged aborted fetuses to pregnant women. If you choose to do it the hard way rather than the easy way, that's fine with me. Given that the prolife movement has yet to provide the public with a logically valid, legally sound and wholly indisputable argument against abortion in 34 years, you have no choice but to waste your free time hanging outside of clinics. Frankly, I would much prefer to spend my free time banging my partner, but hey, it's your choice.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I'll try to address your post even though you make it very difficult when you combine several posts into one of yours and do not even clarify who you are quoting. No wonder your posts are so long. I will place them in shorter posts so others can follow along as well.
Ok let's do that. Moses for example. What is the significant differences between Moses and Paul Hill's actions in defense of innocent people from an unjust aggressor?

reply from: RobertFerguson

You acknowledge that Moses was justified. Good. Do you recongize that the word God used to describe this defensive act is NOT the same word used in the 6th commandment 'you shall not murder'? Now why do you suppose that God does not condemn Moses and in His wisdom chose a word that is NEVER used in conjuction with a defensive killing?
As to the severity of force. That is determined by the aggressor. If they are using less than lethal forcer, then it is good to use less than lethal force to defend thier victim.
If the abortionist or their accomplices are known to cary a weapon, then one is justified in defending themselves with a weapon up to the force that the unjust aggressor is using. In the case of the mall shooter in Utah, the off duty police man used a gun because the unjust aggressor was using a gun.
I am all for a defender using less than lethal means, however, in each case in which this was done- (several baby killers wounded in Canada, one kidnapped in the US and Tiller shot once in both arms) the abortionist killed again. It seems the only way to stop them from killing is to kill them in defense of their innocent victims. Can we put your down for being an advocate of this amount of force, or was it all just meaningless talk to side track the conversation?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Nice verse, however- No one is trying to kill you. Try to be less dramatic. And honest too, if possible. There has not been casting of any stones at you. The verse does not apply to what has been done here. You were simply shown where you posted, and now acknowledged false statements and claims by you about Yoda and others.
We can engage in a pissing contest about personalities and false appications of verses- if you wish, however it seems a much better thing to actually stick with the subject at hand. THE EQUAL DEFENSE OF THE PREBORN
That is not scriptural. There are many instances where men of God did not wait around but rather stepped up to the plate and defended their families and nations.
Phinehas for example. Phinehas killed two people with a spear and God did not condemn his actions. But rewarded Phinehas saving his family and nation and rewarded Phinehas with a royal priesthood for his zeal that is everlasting.
To discuss the issue of "imminent harm" it is helpful to more clearly define how Christians throughout the ages have viewed the concept of imminency. To do that, we will use as comparison a fundamental Christian doctrine, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
When Christians discuss the return of the Savior they often refer to the "imminent return." What do they mean by that? A survey of Christians will reveal that for some there is a strong hope that His return will be in the next moment, only days, or perhaps months away. Others understand that it may be years, perhaps even long after they have fallen asleep in death. Yet all of these Christians claim that Christ's return is "imminent."
Imminent then appears to mean something other than immediate with reference to a timetable. Instead, it clearly refers to a certainty. It is certain that Christ will return, and the Christian is to be diligent in responding to that fact. With regard to abortion then, it appears that the issue is not the nearness in time but the certainty that the abortionist does intend to kill again.
The defender of preborn children cannot be condemned based upon the proximity in time to which he shot the abortionist. What was certain, based upon his strong commitment, past behavior, public pronouncements, and significant financial investment, was that the abortionists did intend to kill again. The defenders were certain of that fact; certain that there were no other significant remedies available to save lives, and we argue that she cannot be condemned as having acted outside of a threat of imminent harm.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I have forgotten no such thing. I identify with the oppressed not the oppressor.
Christians concerned over the use of force which has proven to be lethal often have a sincere concern for the eternal well-being of the abortionist. As the Scriptures say, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23), and neither should we.
By ending the life of an unjust aggressor in order to save an innocent victim, is it legitimate to say that Griffin and Hill consigned David Gunn, John Britton, and James Barrett to hell?
Those who condemn the use of force to save the unborn child often argue somewhat schizophrenically on this issue. Using force to assist an elderly who is being mugged is never condemned as an action robbing the mugger of his eternal salvation. Yet our compassion is often misguided away from the victim and toward the victimizer when dealing with those who kill children for a living (perhaps because we cannot see the unborn).
Our attitude of "kindness, justice and righteousness" (Jer. 9:24) * in imitation of God's character * is misplaced so that we fail to correctly identify with the oppressed and attach our sentiments of concern to the oppressor. Yet it is to those unseen oppressed who are denied kindness and justice that God extends Himself toward. So should we.
When asked :
"How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?"
You replied:
That's a good dodge of the questions. Try again.
I haven't ignored your claim. You say one thing but in discriminating against the preborn by arguing they are not worthy of the same and equal defense that is acceptable to the born person shows your claim to be false. I know they are uncomfortable but try to actually address the questions this time.
How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?

reply from: RobertFerguson

You enjoy choosing the oppressor over the oppressed?
In addition to recognizing that the victim's well-being ought to be a primary concern, we need to recognize that the Christian is not given occultic powers by God. We do not have the ability to know when and if an abortionist intends to quit or repent. We are not called to follow in the footsteps of psychics and spiritists like Edgar Casey and Jeanne Dixon. Instead, the Christian is simply enjoined to do justice and to love mercy (Micah 6:6-8).
When God extends mercy, it is most often to those denied it by their oppressors or others who could come to their aid but do not. Amazingly, we also see a biblical case for arguing that He has graciously extended mercy toward those who have murdered unborn children for twenty years in much the same way He withheld judgment from the Amorites of Abraham's day (Gen. 15:16). And it now appears that their iniquity is complete, or nearly so.

reply from: fetalisa

Don't blame God for your lack of an ability to construct a logically indisputable & legally sound argument to convince the public to accept your dogma. Accept responsibility that your arguments have failed. You can't blame God for that.

reply from: AshMarie88

Viability.
Viability is the entire pregnancy. A 3 week old embryo is viable, an 8 week old fetus is viable.
If it's alive and is capable of survival, it's viable.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Fetalisa :
"My stance has not changed at any point throughout this discussion. You would have to be blind to not see that. "
But the basis of your arguements have.You may have the same view constantly, but what you have argued from contradicts itself. When you start one arguement with stating something IS and then start another arguement by stating the same thing ISN'T, those two arguements contradict each other.
"Do you have any evidence PP is operating from the standpoint of an Arian conspiracy today?"
I have the evidence that PP has not done what basically every single other group HAS done. That speaks for itself.
you need to admit that you will always find a way to poorly discredit any source you do not like. You don't like it, you ..YOU.. throw a smear campaign against whatever that source is.
"If something of this scale were occurring, it would be occurring repeatedly. Articles could easily be located in say, the New York Times, LA Times, etc. "
I cannot...ABSOLUTELY CANNOT believe you just claimed something like that.
I want you to tell me every time those groups have done reports on the Genocide in durfar. Do it. Can you find ONE time those sources did an article on the genocide in durfar? damn, that was the most foolish claim I have EVER heard.
"The other complete lie here is that PP is pretending the Roe decision made abortion legal. The Roe decision DID make abortion legal. That's an indisputable legal FACT. None who states it are pretending."
I love how you twist every quote and think youwill get away with it.
The quote said PP likes to PRETEND the laws made it safe. It didn't say the law did.
But you totally twisted that for your own point.
And...I love how uneducated you are.
Roe V Wade DIDN'T make abortion legal at ALL. All it did was take the rights of the states away to choose if it was legal or not. It simply made a general legality become a total legality. All Roe V Wade did was to do everything the founding fathers were afraid of.It took power from the states.
"Because if you kill my mom, I suffer the loss of a person whom I have known for years. Whereas, if I had been aborted, none on the planet would ever have known the difference, including me. If I steal from you, you suffer the loss of whatever it was I stole. Whereas, if a woman has an abortion, your life is no different after her abortion than it was before."
this sounds some what similar to "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'
you are completely ignoring the fact the abortion is KILLING a person, and you are saying that as proof that it ISN'T a person. Your saying because you ignore the fact, the fact doesn't exist.
"That's your opinion. If you wish to see the laws changed, then it must be done legally. There is no legal principle that states consent to sex equals consent to a birthed child."
This is a prime example of you ignoring what you don't like.
I said it gives consent to pregnancy, you agreed.
I said the uterus is only needed in pregnancy, you said there is no law that states that.
now its YOU saying a law makes something real. Wow, you are pathetic, you do exactly what you yelled at someone else for when they didn't even do it. Your pathetic.
"Birth control alone proves consent to sex DOES NOT equal consent to a birthed child."
I said consent to pregnancy. Thats the only context we were talking about.
either your unintelligent, or dishonest. A problem either way.
"Boob jobs are done out of vanity and not need. Who cares?"
We aren't claiming that boob jobs kill someone.
We can kill in self defense, but no for personal reasons eg vanity.
keep your ADD in check, keep attention on the context of the arguement.
"That's your opinion. There is no legal principle to be found in our law which supports it either. If you wish to change the law, you will do it based on legal principle, not your hair-brained idea that sex must result in a live birth in every case."
We weren't talking legal context, we were talking on what YOU said. Pay attention.
we were talking consent to sex being consent to PREGNANCY, you agreed.
Then I said that gives consent to uterus use. and you started running away. again.
"Presently, personhood begins at viability. I have never argued that life doesn't start at conception. I only wish to know by what reasoning can the life which exists at conception be considered morally equivalent to one already born."
None of us are viable on our own.
If I send you stark naked into the middle of the amazon alone, you sure as hell aren't coming out alive.
We are all dependant upon others. Your idea of viability is pathetic.
So the child who just went home (its been all over the news) who was born WAY premature..Are you saying that child was not a person untill he/she was taken off the machine?
In that case what about children who are on machines for years after birth?
People in comas?
Are you saying personhood progresses? So killing some people is worse then killing someone else of a different age?
come on.
"Certain rights are granted. You seem to have difficulty with the arbitrary nature of law. "
No I asked what happend between that moment and a second before in a different context. heres the 4,000,000,000th time. STAY IN CONTEXT.
Medically, what happens 1 second before you grant the rights and when you grant them? Nothing, viability is a gradual growth.
"Well until you offer valid proof from an unbiased source, I am hardly going to take your word for it."
Again, you mean you didn't like the sources I gave, so you claimed they weren't any good.
And if we talk about smear campaigns nullifying validity of arguements, you shouldn't ever debate again.
"So it's ridiculous for you to suggest if you weren't there women won't have a choice."
I suggested that the only choice PP wants those women to have is the choices PP tells them about.
I was doing exactly what PP claimed to do, giving choices. So they ought to freakin invite me inside if they were really pro-choice.
"Oh you have made your point very clear here. PP called the cops on you which pissed you off. In order to exact your revenge on PP for doing this, you have chosen to conduct a smear campaign against them personally, in addition to participating in a smear campaign already set in motion by the fringe, extremist group known as the prolifers. In other words, nothing you say against PP can be taken seriously because the only reason you say it is to pay them back for calling the cops on you. "
I said YOU were avoiding the point, like you did AGAIN!. Good job.
Now, my point was very well presented, and you didn't like it. again, you twised it.
I stated that I broke no law, and that PP sent the cops because they were against choice. I made no statement that I had a vendetta against PP.You in your lovely smear campaign asserted that. and since imnot a finger extremeist group, you can't claim that i am participating in anything.
"It's nonsensical. PP can't force women to have abortions who don't want them. So it's ridiculous for you to suggest if you weren't there women won't have a choice. Women have a choice by law, not because you've nothing better to do with your time besides hang out outside a PP clinic."
I think this makes 5 billion times you missed the entire point. Wow.
"What does this have to do with this discussion? Nothing at all. Next?"
It completely destroyed your claim that the pro-lifers are the ones being aggressive.
You didn't like it,and so claimed it had nothing to do with the discussion. Or maybe you just again lost attention and forgot where it applied to.
"And really, if abortion did cause an increased risk of breast cancer (which it doesn't), who cares? Driving a car of flying by plane increases risk of death too. I don't see you wishing cars and planes were illegal. "
This is a perfect example of : A. You contradicting your own arguements by using the Even if it did. and B.you not paying attention to the context.
My mention of the breast cancer risk had nothing to do with the risk factor, it had to do with the simple fact you were claiming abortion is safe.
"I would have never known the difference, which means no harm is done. How could I have given or withheld consent while in the womb anyway? You are being silly."
So if i kill someone right now, unless its slow and painful, they aren't going to be like "OH WOW, HE IS KILLING ME, I DON'T LIKE THIS!". You are saying that since the unborn child can't stop you,or vocally say no, its fine.
Thats poor logic.
Someone who is deaf blind and mute can't verbally or physically try to stop someone from shooting them even if the shooter is right in their face.
Robert
"I'll try to address your post even though you make it very difficult when you combine several posts into one of yours and do not even clarify who you are quoting. No wonder your posts are so long. I will place them in shorter posts so others can follow along as well."
Could you tell me how to do that indentation you all do when quoting someone else, So I can figure out how to do it. (I already stated that I can only post one post at a time because I can't reload the page for a few hours after I post).
"Ok let's do that. Moses for example. What is the significant differences between Moses and Paul Hill's actions in defense of innocent people from an unjust aggressor? "
Moses was right there the moment of the action affecting the third party.
It goes with what I said, its moral to kill the abortionists right before the abortion.
Hill didn't kill the person right before an abortion,and to my knowledge he never even tried to contact or help the abortionist change at any point.
"You acknowledge that Moses was justified. Good. Do you recongize that the word God used to describe this defensive act is NOT the same word used in the 6th commandment 'you shall not murder'? Now why do you suppose that God does not condemn Moses and in His wisdom chose a word that is NEVER used in conjuction with a defensive killing?
As to the severity of force. That is determined by the aggressor. If they are using less than lethal forcer, then it is good to use less than lethal force to defend thier victim.
If the abortionist or their accomplices are known to cary a weapon, then one is justified in defending themselves with a weapon up to the force that the unjust aggressor is using. In the case of the mall shooter in Utah, the off duty police man used a gun because the unjust aggressor was using a gun.
I am all for a defender using less than lethal means, however, in each case in which this was done- (several baby killers wounded in Canada, one kidnapped in the US and Tiller shot once in both arms) the abortionist killed again. It seems the only way to stop them from killing is to kill them in defense of their innocent victims. Can we put your down for being an advocate of this amount of force, or was it all just meaningless talk to side track the conversation?"
First off, Im very pleased in how you debate.
You aren't rude or insulting, i appreciate it.
Moses was justified, and didn't murder.Plain and simple, its common sence God didn't use the word for murder.
I also agree severity of force is a factor in severity of defense.
Its only okay to shoot someone carrying a gun if they are about to use the gun or ARE USING the gun. Like right before an abortion.
(Im not contradicting you btw) if someone has a gun they might be licensed to carry that gun.So just because they have it we can shoot them. know what I mean?
I am FOR the killing of an abortion doctor if its before an abortion.
Up to that point I believe every other chance needs to be used.
So you can put me down for that.
Again, look at the good abortionists who convert have done for the pro-life movement.
"We can engage in a pissing contest about personalities and false appications of verses- if you wish, however it seems a much better thing to actually stick with the subject at hand. THE EQUAL DEFENSE OF THE PREBORN "
Agreed.myonly point was I don't like being attacked for something that I'm not the only person to accidentally do.
"Our attitude of "kindness, justice and righteousness" (Jer. 9:24) * in imitation of God's character * is misplaced so that we fail to correctly identify with the oppressed and attach our sentiments of concern to the oppressor. Yet it is to those unseen oppressed who are denied kindness and justice that God extends Himself toward. So should we."
really good point.
"How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?"
I wasn't dodging the question.
I was saying that because from conception the child has a right to life the age he/she has to be is concieved. after conception, they deserve the same defense.
Again, the only defense we can give a BORN people is if the act against said persons is about to be commited. If we hear someone is going to kill someone tomorrow, we can go kill them at that moment. We have to try to stop them until the point in which they are about to kill said persons.
That is my stance,I apologize if I didn't make it clear.
"You enjoy choosing the oppressor over the oppressed?
In addition to recognizing that the victim's well-being ought to be a primary concern, we need to recognize that the Christian is not given occultic powers by God. We do not have the ability to know when and if an abortionist intends to quit or repent. We are not called to follow in the footsteps of psychics and spiritists like Edgar Casey and Jeanne Dixon. Instead, the Christian is simply enjoined to do justice and to love mercy (Micah 6:6-8).
When God extends mercy, it is most often to those denied it by their oppressors or others who could come to their aid but do not. Amazingly, we also see a biblical case for arguing that He has graciously extended mercy toward those who have murdered unborn children for twenty years in much the same way He withheld judgment from the Amorites of Abraham's day (Gen. 15:16). And it now appears that their iniquity is complete, or nearly so."
Other then saying I enjoy choosing the opresor over the oppresed (which is a petty needless attack...pissing contest persay.) that is a good point.
My point was not that we can assume what God willdo, but actually the opposite.
Since we cannot know that God doesn't plan for the abortionist to have a change of heart in a certain amount of time, we cannot killthat person unless its right before that abortion..because God could change their hearts right up to that time.
Remember, Saul slaughtered christians until God knocked him off his horse and changed his heart. That is what I meant.

reply from: fetalisa

Anyone can make any claim. It's another thing entirely to prove any claim. You can't point to a single example of anything I have posted to prove this claim, which means none here have any reason to believe your claim.
Lack of comprehension on your part, does not constitute a contradiction on my part. Keep reading and maybe you will finally get it, based on an example you actually provided.
Exactly! No matter the beliefs of the founder, you've not one shred of proof this Arian conspiracy is occurring today.
NEWSFLASH! Scientific data which contradicts the CDC is FALSE DATA!
Your pet prolife sites claim ignorant*****such as a law can make a surgical technique safe. In making such impossible and ridiculous claims, such sites destroy their own credibility by their own hand. This leaves us no choice but to ask for LEGITIMATE sources which support your claims, otherwise we've no reason to believe your claims. Your sources read like the National Enquirer, which is why I can't take them seriously. You would rather make this appear to be a personal problem on my part, because you refuse to see that lies and falsehoods on the part of such prolife sites, is one of the contributing factors as to why the public can't and won't accept the prolife position. If the position and the arguments are so strong and valid, there is no need to resort to deceptions and lies, since the arguments would stand without them.
Now, do you, or do you not believe that a law can make a surgical technique safe? Or do you believe the risk rate of a surgery is the same no matter what any given law might say?
You are a fool. When I ask for documentation of your claims from a legitimate site such as the New York or LA Times, you respond with "I cannot...ABSOLUTELY CANNOT believe you just claimed something like that." Uh HELLO? What happened in Durfar is easily documented in legitimate sources such as the New York or LA Times. You offer an example which proves my point exactly by bringing Darfur into this. Now can you document your claims against PP with legitimate sources as one can do with Durfar?
By laying traps for yourself as you did here, you certainly make this easy for me.
Yet another claim without proof. Instead of pulling random claims out of your behind, why don't you show how this claim is twisted? Oh, that's right. Your modus operandi is to claim all manner of ridiculous things, and either supply no proof, or supply sources that read like the National Enquirer.
It's still a falsehood. Modern abortion techniques ARE safe, no matter whether someone pretends a law makes it so or not. Whether a surgical technique is safe or not does not hinge on what the law states, nor what someone wishes to pretend about the law.
No law that states boob jobs are safe, affect the risk of the surgery. Boob jobs are safe, no matter whether one pretends the law makes them safe or not.
That means alot coming from someone who can't document their claims against PP with legitimate sources, as one might document the Durfar genocide with legitimate sources.
Then there's no need for the prolife movement to exist. There's no need for you to hang out at clinics. There's no need for you to be pissed off at PP for calling the cops on you. And there's no need for you to falsely claim abortion increases risk of breast cancer since abortion isn't legal. And you call me uneducated?
States don't have the right to determine if slavery is legal or not either. What's your point?
Tell it to South Dakota.
How can I ignore something you have yet to prove? It is not a fact that an unborn is a person. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml
proof an unborn is not a person. A pregnant woman was in the HOV lane ALONE IN HER CAR. She was pulled over and ticketed for driving ALONE in the HOV lane. She argued in court she had a right to be in the HOV lane, because she carried another 'person' in her womb. She was judged GUILTY OF DRIVING ALONE IN THE HOV LANE, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON IN THE CAR.
They aren't persons in the only sense that matters, which is the legal sense. They don't possess any rights at all.
That's a prime example of you refusing to address a very valid point. If there was any legal principle in our law which stated consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy, birth control would be illegal in our society. Your claim consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy is your personally held opinion which none in our society are obligated to follow. We are only obligated to follow the law, not your personally held opinions. This is true whether I ignore it or not. This is true whether I like it or not. So did you have a point here at all?
Now you are outright lying. I never said consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. As a matter of fact, I pointed out several instances where people might consent to sex for the health benefits of sex, to celebrate the bond with their partner, etc. For you to claim otherwise is to outright lie. Yet you can't figure out why the public won't vote for your ideology. Quit lying and your movement might gain some credibility with the public.
I said no such thing, which is why you can't provide any direct quote I posted to prove such.
You are an idiot. When I state there is no legal principle which states consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy or birth, that is nowhere near the equivalent of stating no law states a uterus is needed for pregnancy.
Call it what you want. Their is no legal principle nor law in our society which states consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. That is your personally held opinion which none in our society are obligated to follow. Birth control exists for the specific reason that one can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy.
That means a lot coming from someone who wishes to smear PP simply because they called the cops on him.
Yet you can't prove that what an abortion kills is morally equivalent to a born person. I have asked you repeatedly to provide some reason as to why I should consider them to be morally equivalent. You've yet to offer anything at all.
Yet you can't prove that what an abortion kills is morally equivalent to a born person. I have asked you repeatedly to provide some reason as to why I should consider them to be morally equivalent. You've yet to offer anything at all.
We are talking legal context. You want abortion to be illegal. You claim it should be because consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. That's your personally held opinion that none in our society are obligated to follow, unless you can provide some legal theory which supports your personally held opinion.
I never agreed. You need to learn how to debate. I pointed out the reason birth control exists is so one can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. That proves many in our society consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. You do nothing but lie in claiming I have ever agreed with you on this. Why would I agree with this idea of yours, when I referred to this idea of yours as 'hair-brained." Reading and comprehension pays.
I have never run away. I argue consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy, which can easily be shown by the existence of birth control. I clearly stated there is no legal principle in our law which states if someone consents to sex they are consenting to pregnancy.
That's a lie. You and I both exist without requiring any biological attachment to the body of another.
Number one, all you offer here is a hypothesis, which is a guess pulled out of your behind. Additionally, it is immaterial and irrelevant. I can go into the Amazon and return from it as well, or not return and die there. No matter the case, I will not require a biological attachment to the body of another, precisely because I am viable.
Depending on others is not the same as requiring the use of the body of another, in order to continue living. Even if I did require your body to continue living, like say, needing your kidney for a transplant, I can't just take or use your kidney without your consent. Likewise, an unborn can't use the body of the mother without consent, because there is no legal principle in our law which states consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy.
That child was not a legal person until it left the womb and lived, ie, became viable to survive on it's own, without the use of the body of another.
They are persons once they exit the womb. Read the Constitution. In every case where the word 'person' or 'persons' is used, born people are being addressed. In every instance of the rights addressed where the words 'person' or 'persons' is used, only rights that born people could exercise are addressed.
They are born so due rights.
You are free to offer a logically valid, legally sound and indisputable argument that the unborn are morally equivalent to born persons, at any time. How many times must our society ask? Why can you not offer such an argument? Our society will not ban abortion until and unless such an argument is offered. So you are of the opinion the unborn are persons morally equivalent to born persons. Big deal! The idea will remain your personally held opinion until and unless you convince the rest of us why that idea should be law. That's yet to happen, 34 years after Roe.
No, you come on and convince me of why I should consider the unborn to be morally equivalent to born persons. I have no reason to participate in that fantasy of yours, until you convince me with a logically valid, legally sound, indisputable argument that what you say is true.
Ok, I can spell it out for you much like one would have to spell it out to a 3 year old child;
Before viability = no rights
After viablility = certain rights
Out of the womb = legal person
Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need it simpler than that?
Medical facts don't necessarily have any relation to the law. From a medical standpoint, cars can be deadly. It doesn't necessarily follow that cars will be banned by law.
You should have no problems documenting your points, using legitimate sources, in the same way the Darfur genocide can easily be documented with legitimate sources. I am still waiting.
It's completely valid to state you are smearing PP because they called the cops on you. You have a personal vendetta against PP, plain and simple.
Your suggestion is wrong. PP provides ob/gyn services for women who wish to have children and so therefore, fully support choice.
Choice doesn't depend on you. Choice comes from the law.
Choice comes from the law, not you. Your body can be in the clinic, outside the clinic, at a baseball game, or on top of a whore. No matter where your body is, choice exists with or without you. The fact you fantasize that choice only exists where you happen to be is a testament to your ego.
You: WAA! WAA! WAA! PP callled the cops on me!
Why don't you go tell your mommy? Or better yet, why don't you get a lawyer and charge PP for this incident? Oh, that's right, you like playing the victim. If you did something about it instead of whining, you would have to come down off your cross.
But you didn't tell us why they called the cops.
Which is a lie. Choice comes from the Roe decision, not you.
You don't have to. It's obvious from your whining that you do.
Keep pretending a woman's choice depends on where you happen to be.
Hardly. All it states is some unknown off-duty cop showed a gun to a protester. We don't know why he did. We don't know what the protester's were doing at the time that would lead him to do what he did. We might also note the date of the incident was 1980, when protesters were far more obnoxious in their tactics than today, because certain laws involved with clinic protests weren't in place. Without the whole story, it would be foolish to draw any conclusions. Oh wait, that's right. You are into victimhood and expect all to fall at your feet whenever you claim someone is victimized.
You are too stupid to realize that accounting for all possibilities, then removing immaterial points in a process of elimination, is not a contradiction at all. I will break it down much like I would for a 3 year old in the hope that you will finally comprehend it;
1. Abortion doesn't cause an increase in breast cancer as can easily be shown by viewing the scientific data on file with the CDC.
2. But even if it did cause an increased risk of breast cancer, it wouldn't matter. Red meat causes increased risk of cancer, as does trans-fats. Just because something increases risk of cancer, it doesn't necessarily follow it would be banned, because in a free society, citizens get to choose what risks they are willing to take.
Therefore, since #2 is immaterial to the debate because so many things in our society increase risk of cancer, we are left with point 1 as the only point standing.
Now, please point out where point 1 contradicts itself, since that's the only point left once all is said and done.
Abortion is safe. It couldn't become legal until the abortion techniques were safe. I already stated, if abortion had a 50% death rate, it would still be banned. It doesn't, which is one of the reasons it became legal. Further, there is no risk of increased chance of breast cancer from abortion. That's scientifically proven and medically indisputable fact.
That's completely different. Let's say you kill a married man with a 5 year old son;
A wife has lost a husband
a son has lost a father
a company lost an employee (assuming the man worked.)
the man's parents lose a son
the man's church loses a member
If I had been aborted, no one on the planet would have known the difference. Can you see the difference between no one on the planet knowing the difference, as compared to all the people who suffer loss if you kill that man?
It's only poor logic if you ignore the vast differences between the result of you killing that man, where many suffer losses, and me being aborted, where none on the planet know the difference.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"I'll try to address your post even though you make it very difficult when you combine several posts into one of yours and do not even clarify who you are quoting. No wonder your posts are so long. I will place them in shorter posts so others can follow along as well."
Neal,
LOG OUT and then the page reploads much easier and faster. Then log back in when you wish to comment, repeat like shampoo. This will cause you not to have such long posts. A person might miss your comments to thme when you start such a long post to someone else.
Secondly, click on "quote" and the forum will do the HMLT for you. Just add a [ with a / and a q as well as a ] after the quote that you are answering. You can preview your attempt before clicking on reply.
then LOG OUT again while you surf the forum.
repeat each time you wish to post. You wil be able to post consecuatively with little effort and others will pay more attention to your words. If we have to search through long posts, many will just give up on you. You invested time in posting- make your investment work for you. Rather than not returning anything for your investment besides the proaborts answrs which no one reads.... But thankls for taking up so much of her time as to not waste so much of ours.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Robert
"Ok let's do that. Moses for example. What is the significant differences between Moses and Paul Hill's actions in defense of innocent people from an unjust aggressor? "
Your knowledge is lacking then. Paul was in front of this abortuary preaching repentance for years. http://www.armyofgod.com/PHEXQTabortionist.jpg He spoke on many talk shows and wrote hundreds of letters seeking repentance from abortion.
Paul was as close to the abortionists knife as is humanly possible. There is no way to get any closer at this abortuary.
Hill lived a life above reproach. He honored God in all he did. During his trial the prosecution could not find anyone to dispurage his character as is the practice in a trial setting. The closest they got was a childhood friend from primary school.

"You acknowledge that Moses was justified. Good. Do you recongize that the word God used to describe this defensive act is NOT the same word used in the 6th commandment 'you shall not murder'? Now why do you suppose that God does not condemn Moses and in His wisdom chose a word that is NEVER used in conjuction with a defensive killing?
As to the severity of force. That is determined by the aggressor. If they are using less than lethal forcer, then it is good to use less than lethal force to defend thier victim.
If the abortionist or their accomplices are known to cary a weapon, then one is justified in defending themselves with a weapon up to the force that the unjust aggressor is using. In the case of the mall shooter in Utah, the off duty police man used a gun because the unjust aggressor was using a gun.
I am all for a defender using less than lethal means, however, in each case in which this was done- (several baby killers wounded in Canada, one kidnapped in the US and Tiller shot once in both arms) the abortionist killed again. It seems the only way to stop them from killing is to kill them in defense of their innocent victims. Can we put your down for being an advocate of this amount of force, or was it all just meaningless talk to side track the conversation?"
Don't get ahead of yourself. I am usually most rude and insulting.
Great. What are the sibgnificant differences that make you claim Hill's act a murder and Moses' not? Simply a few feet in location? That does not fly! This abortionist paid tohave a killing center, he invested in expensive killing tools, he invested in 'how to' kill instruction, he hired accomplices, he advertised his killing, he accepted payment from 32 mothers to kil their children THAT DAY. If this were done for any other type of killing it would be enough to convict the guy of a murder plot.
I am not even mentioning that he had killed before and past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. Why you might ask? Because Hill did NOT kill for vengeance. It was totally in DEFENSE. So we need not be sidetracked down a road of false witness against this man's motives.
Good. Abortion is a lethal offense. The defense for it carries up to and including a lethal defense.
I do know what you mean. Like in the case of the Utah Mall shooter. The off duty cop shot and killed him because he was using a gun. It was not only self defense but defense of the others atthe mall. WE agree.
Where I think we conflict is taht Paul's act of shooting the baby killer (first) was an act of defnse of another. He iddi not have a gun to harm Hill. His killing tools could not kill Paul, they could however kill those 32 waiting inside. Hill would not make it insode to defend these 32, if he was going to act it had to be then. As close to the act of killing as was humanly possible.
Great. So as youhave shared before, you accept kidnapping, cutting off hands, perhaps firebombing abortuaries etc, in efforts to stop the killings.
Sure great good done by Nathanson, Evret etc. The problem I have with your wanting to wait to defend preborn is that you place your focus on the oppressor rather than the oppressed. I see their deaths (the deaths of the opressor) at the hands of a defender as justice. I cannot think for a moment that you would feel this way had Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Nemulleor and other great men of God been successful in their attempts to assasinate Hitler. We have to be consistent in our theology. The church sees these men as hereos of the faith. Moses the defensive killer is mention in Hebrews (hall of faith) for his great faith. Time will come when Paul Hill is recieved by the faithful this same way.
I know a (now Christians) woman who committed abortions in Tx who is for the lethal defense of preborn children. When I traveled with Operation Rescue around the nation "blocading" kiling centers, the team I was with had a proabort "shadow" who was with the NOW and NARAL who one of my team members lead to Christ.
But it's like this, to me... Take Tucker in Tx, the woman that all kinds of beleivers tried to get removed from a just execution for her axe murders... Becoming a Christian does not take away the just consequences of capital offenses here on earth. Nathason should still be held accountable for crimes against humanity. It's in Heaven where his offenses are covered by the blood. Those who smoke 3 packs a day and become a believer- can still have lung cancer. The thief may stil be brought to justice. Scripture tells us (in Hosea or Amos) that we are to seek justice.
"Our attitude of "kindness, justice and righteousness" (Jer. 9:24) * in imitation of God's character * is misplaced so that we fail to correctly identify with the oppressed and attach our sentiments of concern to the oppressor. Yet it is to those unseen oppressed who are denied kindness and justice that God extends Himself toward. So should we."
Thanks, it is made by Cathy Ramey in an article she wrote about defensive action. I hope you can begin to adjust your focus to the oppressed rather than those who oppress.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?"
Please restate this. It sounds like you are giving the preborn child only a partial right to defense and not full-fledged equality that the born have. If this is the case, and I am sure you would repent of such an error in thinking. Or if no repentance is to be found, please provide chapter and verse for such discrimination. I am sure you meant something different than it seems to read.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"How old does a child have to be- before she may be defended with force?
Are we to discriminate against the preborn like a bunch of proaborts- claiming they must be born before they are worthy of a defense that might take the life of their killers?"
No problem. So you apply this to the assination attempts against Hitler by the Confessing Church of Germany as well? These heroes of our faith are really felon conspirators of murder?
"You enjoy choosing the oppressor over the oppressed?
In addition to recognizing that the victim's well-being ought to be a primary concern, we need to recognize that the Christian is not given occultic powers by God. We do not have the ability to know when and if an abortionist intends to quit or repent. We are not called to follow in the footsteps of psychics and spiritists like Edgar Casey and Jeanne Dixon. Instead, the Christian is simply enjoined to do justice and to love mercy (Micah 6:6-8).
When God extends mercy, it is most often to those denied it by their oppressors or others who could come to their aid but do not. Amazingly, we also see a biblical case for arguing that He has graciously extended mercy toward those who have murdered unborn children for twenty years in much the same way He withheld judgment from the Amorites of Abraham's day (Gen. 15:16). And it now appears that their iniquity is complete, or nearly so."
Great. You set the time.
Is 5 mins before the killing long enough to wait?
How about 30 mins? Can a man defend the preborn 30 mins before they are to be killed?
Let's put your time frame into daily life. I see the abortionist come to the killing center and he commits several abortions (4-6 or more) and drives away, all in one hours time. Would it had been justifiable to defend the preborn children from death while the abortionist was walking from the car to the killing center's door?
What is this arbitrary time frame and who determines it?
Chapter and verse, please.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

fair warning, this is my post to respond to fetalisa , Robert My next post (since you explained how to make it work) will respond to you.
So, unless you are interested in seeing fetalisa be stupid, read no further. I wouldn't want him to waste your time as he has wasted mine.
As to cut the size of this down..Im going to :
Skip reanwsering things. If I anwsered once, and you asked again, I'm not repeating it. You attempts to just break someone down by insult/charactor assassination/ and repition of broken rhetoric won't work.
Also, since you have made it clear you don't have an open mind on this matter, I will simply state the facts. I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. I'm only obligated to tell you the truth. I'm not going to go to hell for telling the truth.
As such, its up to YOU to take what I say and research it without bias. Since I have done such to a high extent, if you are really so much better then I, I'm sure you will do the same.
To anwser about half of what you said this post.
My comments based on your comments are correct. If I said you said something, its because you did. If you choose not to remember the idiotic things you state to attempt to amnify you from your own foolishness, so be it. I won't waste my time on it.
I stated every group who still doesn't carry their racist agenda has already stated apology to ever holding that agenda. PP, and the KKK, has never done any such thing.
"NEWSFLASH! Scientific data which contradicts the CDC is FALSE DATA!"
So just because a well established organization states something as fact makes it fact?
First, Science changes..constantly. Nothing is fact.
Second, your CDC supports ebryonic stem cell reasearch does it not? It indeed has claimed it is a promising field, for things including diabetes, correct?
Yeah, ebryonic SCR has done NOTHING for diabetes, or anything else.
ADULT SCR has done TONS. Hmm. pretty sound organization?
How about the very sound organization of the supreme court once ruled that african americans were only 3/5 human. Was that correct just because they said so?
So in this case you (according to your own logic) support a field of research that when given billions more then adult SCR has done less then adult SCR has, AND you think african americans aren't fully human?!
Nice.
"Now, do you, or do you not believe that a law can make a surgical technique safe? Or do you believe the risk rate of a surgery is the same no matter what any given law might say?"
A law cannot make something safe. Thought pro-choicers like to assume since something is legal its safe.
The only way something can become more safe once its a law is that if its a law it has to follow the legal saftey standards.
"By laying traps for yourself as you did here, you certainly make this easy for me."
I love how you say I trapped myself there.
Did you present one source of proof ?
You didn't even show me one of the articles you asked for.
So, Those media publications that you stated, show me FROM ONE OF THOSE an article on durfar.
You do exactly what you criticize me for.
I don't pull anything out of nowhere.
When I said you twist quotes for your own good its only because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't mentally retarded. Because its one or the other. I present quotes, and you either can't read them properly, or can't respond without twisting them.
This can be seen beautifully clear when You tried to say that Pro-lifers claim laws make medical procedures safe, when I clearly quotes that the article said pro-choicers do that.
"That means alot coming from someone who can't document their claims against PP with legitimate sources, as one might document the Durfar genocide with legitimate sources."
Have you documented something about durfar from any single one of those media publications you presented? no.
"Then there's no need for the prolife movement to exist."
If you think the pro-life movement exists solely because of Roe V wade, you are obviously not well enough informed to debate this issue.
Your story about the lady in the car trying to make a persons case about her unborn child.
We are debating the morality of a law, if you then say the law is moral because its a law, you are stupid.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - After the fact therefor the fact. A logical falisy.
"They aren't persons in the only sense that matters, which is the legal sense. They don't possess any rights at all. "
So since the supreme court said that african americans were only 3/5 human it doesn't matter that they ARE fully human, simply because the law said they aren't. Hmm. Nice.
On the consent to pregnancy issue.
If you can debate consent to pregnancy fine.
I wasn't ignoring your debating that consent, because you DIDN'T PRESENT ANY ARGUEMENT.
I said consent to pregnancy you would talk about consent to child birth. In context (which you never follow) these are separate issues. Don't yell at me for your inability to follow conversation.
Okay. To shut you up about this once and for all.
Every stance I have on PP I had BEFORE they called the cops on me.
Nothing has changed, other then that by calling they cops they proved everything I thought of them correct.
There is no vendetta, since I am the same was I was before they called the cops.
Good job on a failed smear campaign.
Now. Viablity.
You changed your stance again. Funny, you did what you say you don't do.
You said viability, then I cleared that out, and you said Vaible separate from being attached to another person. Funny how quickly you change stances.
So. According to your logic a child who is ABOUT to be born after 6 months of pregnancy is ABOUT to be more of a person then a child who has been in utero for 8 1/2 months? Then Personhood is on a sliding scale.
Viability comes over time.
A newborn isn't going to live unless someone else helps it.
Think about times before any means of feeding a baby other then the breast. That child was dependant upon a secondary person. So are you saying that those hundreds of years newborn babies weren't persons until they were weened of breast feeding!? and since today we have other ways to feed newborns then the breast, so its machines that have allowed us to grant personhood to newborn children.
wow.
"You claim it should be because consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy."
Way to put words in my mouth. My view on abortion being moral is not based off of that. That is simply a factor. Your attempt to claim my view is based on one thing that you THINK you can disprove so that you can pretend to win this debate is pathetic.
"That's a lie. You and I both exist without requiring any biological attachment to the body of another."
So you kill the animals you eat, with weapons you made. You make bread with ingrediants you gathered, and you bake it with fire you started from rubbing sticks together.
We are depentant upon each other. Get over it.
I made no hypothesis.
If I send you as an adult naked with nothing (like a baby is right after birth) into the amazon you are going to die.
Or If I send you into a desert with nothing stark naked. Your dead.
There is no laws on unborn children having the right to using the mothers organs yet. That is what we are debating, SHOULD THERE BE
Again. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
"That child was not a legal person until it left the womb and lived, ie, became viable to survive on it's own, without the use of the body of another."
That child WILL NOT SURVIVE ON ITS OWN.
Maybe for a few hours. till it starves.
So then how long must a baby be able to survive on his own to be a person?
You give X amount of time. and a baby is born and lives 6 min less then Xtime. So that BORN CHILD wasn't a person?
"Ok, I can spell it out for you much like one would have to spell it out to a 3 year old child;
Before viability = no rights
After viablility = certain rights
Out of the womb = legal person
Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need it simpler than that?"
I will spell it out for you like I would for a mentally retarded 2 year old.
IM NOT TALKING WHAT AGE DESERVES WHAT RIGHTS. Pay attention.
MEDICALLY..MEDICALLY..MEDICALLY...MEDICALLY..WHAT HAPPENS.
WHAT HAPPENS between the 1 second before viability and the 1 second AFTER viability? Viability is given over a course a time. It doesn't appear in split second.
Your idea that because a child is born it becomes viable doesn't mean squat.
If we do a C section on a baby prematurely, that baby will live. Hence at a younger age it was viable. If a child is born on tuesday, but it would have been perfectly fine if it was born on monday, then on monday it was viable. Therefor you believe that the child should have been considered a person even before it was born.
so tell me, WHILE IN THE WOMB, AT WHAT TIME does a child become totally viable.
Present studies please.
"Your suggestion is wrong. PP provides ob/gyn services for women who wish to have children and so therefore, fully support choice. "
That is still ob/gyn services THEY ARE PROVIDING.
I am not saying because I am there choice is there.
I NEVER said that.
you KNOW I never said that, you just are trying to make it look like I did.
I said I was there offering more choices. I was offering other places they could go that PP does NOT tell them about. Therfor I was offering choices that PP does not. If they were really pro-choice and not just pro-the-choice-that-PP-offers they wouldn't try to stop me by calling the cops.
"Choice doesn't depend on you. Choice comes from the law."
Never said it did come from me.
The law can grant something, but it has to have people to do it.
The law says that we can drive, but it didn't buy me my car. It didn't pay for my drivers ed. It was my driving instructor and the car manufacturer that gave me what I needed to drive. They were the operating factor that allowed me to have what the law said I can have.
I was the operating agent who was offering what they law allows those women to have.
I don't see a government official inside PP offering the choices. So according to your logic PP doesn't offer choices either. It is the law. You are basically saying PP is the law.
"You: WAA! WAA! WAA! PP callled the cops on me!
Why don't you go tell your mommy? Or better yet, why don't you get a lawyer and charge PP for this incident? Oh, that's right, you like playing the victim. If you did something about it instead of whining, you would have to come down off your cross.
"
And that right there, shows your charactor.
And it makes people realize how totally foolish you are.
idiotic stuff like that destroys all credibility you have.
"We might also note the date of the incident was 1980, when protesters were far more obnoxious in their tactics than today, because certain laws involved with clinic protests weren't in place."
you before stated that nothing has changed with pro-lifers since the 80's. You said that I was doing exactly what the prolifers in the 80's did. (talk about not having proof for what you claim.)
So now you are saying that the 80's protesters were different. So either We are the same, and this arguement you just presented fails. Or we are the different and your arguement against me and what I was doing fails. And bam, you have contradicted yourself. again.
"1. Abortion doesn't cause an increase in breast cancer as can easily be shown by viewing the scientific data on file with the CDC."
And African americans are only 3/5 human because its documented the supreme court said so. Glad to see you are as racist as PP.
"2. But even if it did cause an increased risk of breast cancer, it wouldn't matter. Red meat causes increased risk of cancer, as does trans-fats. Just because something increases risk of cancer, it doesn't necessarily follow it would be banned, because in a free society, citizens get to choose what risks they are willing to take."
You can't compair red meat, we aren't claiming that eating red meat kills a person.
The point of health side effects on abortion is only to counter YOUR claim that abortion is totally safe.
"Now, please point out where point 1 contradicts itself, since that's the only point left once all is said and done."
1 Doesn't even stand by itself unless you think that african americans aren't fully human.
"That's completely different. Let's say you kill a married man with a 5 year old son;
A wife has lost a husband
a son has lost a father
a company lost an employee (assuming the man worked.)
the man's parents lose a son
the man's church loses a member
If I had been aborted, no one on the planet would have known the difference. Can you see the difference between no one on the planet knowing the difference, as compared to all the people who suffer loss if you kill that man?"
So if we kill a drifting hobo with no ties to anyone, since nobody will be effected by his death, its okay? since he is the only one who will protest his killing by killing him, nobody cares. So its all good.
Not to mention, every single child aborted effects the pro-life community. We KNOW these people are dieing, and we KNOW that we are losing our nation. We KNOW that 1/3 of MY generation has been aborted. So, it IS effecting a LOT of people.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

My name is keith. :-p

Indeed my knowledge was.
Apologies.
All your information on people having to pay for the actions here, and being forgiven above, I agree with.
I actually believe that after death if we are worthy of heaven but still not clean of all sin we have to go through a trail of purging eg purgatory.
yes , I said that wrong.
I am saying that from the moment of conception on every person has an equal right to life, including the equal right to be defended with force.
Clear enough?

In that case there was an ongoing constant flow of murder since they were in war. Hitler was basically constantly in the act of murder.

You raise good points.
First let me say, when I before said my view on this wasn't going to change it was because nobody had presented this to me in any good way. Basically everyone had been foolish in their presentation like fetalisa, only differene being that this has some merit to it.
With the timeframe..I will say this.
There is no set timeframe
It would be best to say that killing is only acceptible untill the last possible moment comes that you can stop the act.
In general I will say this.
I am not an advocate to killing abortionists.
I am not comfortable with it.
I am not pushing preaching or suggesting it.
I do believe it is not Gods first choice for someone to do..
I also do not condemn it.
I see the morality of your point, and the well presented biblical case you make for it.
I simply view it as a unpreferable outcome.

reply from: RobertFerguson

My name is keith. :-p
Sorry, I am dealing with many forums and thew other poster is named Neal. My apologies.
Accepted. As you can see, it is one of my hot buttons to have a false witness made of those who have the courage to obey whatthey beleive is a calling on teir lives that will ultimately cost them a great deal, even their lives as was the case with Paul Hill.
Are you therefore, Catholic in faith?
I hope so. Time will only tell if you are consistent with this view point or revert to devaluing the tactic that others may bring to the table. I doubt anyone of those few people Griffin, Hill, Shannon, and Kopp really wanted to be called to defend preborn children in the way in which they ultimately did. It is not something that is sought out. If I were called I would battle with the Lord over such a calling. I am sure they did also. You ought to actually write to one or all of them. After all, We are comanded to treat those in prison as if we ourselves were inprisoned and suffering with them. Kopp is a catholic if that makes it more comfortable to write.
If so, I can post the addresses of these defenders.
Keith, there is a contant flow of murder with each and every abortionists. Few if any do it just once in a while. And let's say that they did only murder once in a while... how does that make their killings more paletable? You see... it makes little difference, IF you are holding fast {consistent} to your stated belief that each and every unborn child is worthy of equal defense from the time of conception as is the born child.
Jesus would have died for one person's sins. Yes?
of course not. That is why I attempted to put your rathers of time frame into actual practice of a day at the abortuary.
You see, many abortion chambers have their victims all lined up-ready for the circuit ridiing baby kiler to show up and kill. The baby killer may only be there for a few mins. He goes from one room to the next and often times spends less than 5 mins with each abortion bound mother. This time frame can be documented in the abortionists own words.
so if the time frame under which a preborn child could be defended is 30 mins, that means that Paul Hill met those arbitrary limitations by shooting the baby kiler as he entered the killing center.
Placing a limit of time also highlights an inconsistency between what is acceptable for the born but yet is a requirement for the preborn. My example for this is the shiper shootings from a few summers ago. Do you remeber them? We woul dbe hard placed to find someone who when they came across the sniper and shot him were condemned for their defensive act because he was not laid down in a wooded area with his scope sited on a child at a school yard or bus stop. Most would be satisfied that he had been stopped even if his threat was not imminent.
Even better if there was no baby killing. But we are living in reality were ther eis baby killing that must be stopped.
No one here (advocates of equality for the preborn) has ever said it is God's first choice. Many have tried to imply this. Perhaps you read one of the 'detractors' of equal defense saying this?
I do not think anyone is comfortable with killing, it is regretable. I do not think God is comfortable, yet we know from scripture that He commanded men to kill before. Scripture says He is the same yesterday, today and forever. It also says no greater love has a man than he lay down his life for another. Paul Hill
knew that the state of florida had the death penalty, he went ahead and risked his life (ultimately giving his life) in his attemt to save the preborn children.
I am glad that you see the morality in defending preborn children even with the viscerally regrettable choice of lethal force as righteous nevertheless. Clearly scripture shows that God commanded men to kill even outside the confines of war(Exod. 21:12-17,29; Lev. 20:1-5; Deut. 17:2-7; 2 Kings 9:6-10).
Now we are getting somewhere. Cathy Ramey put it this way: "Finally then, let us not neglect the opportunity we have for open discussion upon this issue of force. It is an occasion for all of us to delve more deeply into the character of God. Is He just? How does His character trait of justice reveal itself, and how are we to be imitators of it? And while we search the Scriptures, let us not make hasty judgments against those who may one day be honored by the Lord for loving the lives of yet-to-be-birthed children more than their own."
I appreciate those who will not condemn those who have sacrificed so much for their faith.
This is the same boat that we are all in. Every advocate for equality for the preborn would rather see the baby killer repent.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Understandibly.
Indeed I am. I prefer not to state it as such, not because I am not proud (I am very proud of it) but simply with all the problems assossciated with the Catholic church today if you profess it as your faith a lot of people will close you out because they are rather foolish.
It's an interesting idea.
This is very true... It's hard to clearly state views that keep all this in line. I keep managing to miss such basic points.
I must be honest, this very concept I am finding uncomfortable.. Its easy to be comfortable in condemning killing an abortionist because when you don't consider the aspects it seems plain as day to be morally wrong..
Trying to take this from a mindest of it not being preferable or desireable but being moral is an odd feeling.
Indeed I remember that sniper, namely because I was generally in the area he was in on many of those days. It made me edgy.

very true.. A very sad reality.
It was encouraging to hear all the positive feedback at the maryland prolife banquet... It had a lot of big pro-lifers and a lot of good response.
good point, Its much harder to do something like that knowing that in a liberal and unamerican (At heart) society like ours he would probably be given the death penalty.

My other fear with this is that this is a slippery slope..
Some people would take this and run with it, trying to use it to justify killing anyone who could be linked to a killing..know what I mean?

Even if it wasn't moral, it would be pathetic to try to condemn someone who took such an extreme action with good intentions in self-sacrafice.
Well, most..sadly there are a few (usually who condone abortionist killings) that have no interest or concern for the abortionist, instead they hope for the abortionists demise.

reply from: fetalisa

Provide a direct quote where I have ever said such or admit you are a liar.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I beleive that I understand your aprehension and have felt this same way also. When MIke Griffin shot the first baby kiler I was faced with exaimining the moral ramifications of beleivingthat abortion is murder. If the baby is a human being and if abortion is murder than why would I be apprehensive about offering the same moral defense of it.
I had to look to scripture. I wanted to prove this wrong. I had to know that scripture shows me that God would not call me to die to myself in such a way. I studied and studied and am still studying, looking to see if God discriminates against the preborn child. I asked Bible scholars, I read reviews form thoise opposed to defending preborn with lethal force, I read books, and papers wriotten by the best. I came down to what you and I are feeling. We do not want to feel as though God could call on us (me) to defend a preborn child in such a way.
God is not a respector of persons. There is no place in scripture that God calls the defense of another "murder" which breaks the 5th Cat and 6th Prot commnadment which uses a different word. WE are to seek justice. We are to defend the fatherless. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we would defend a born neighbor child with force- we should then defend the preborn neighbor with force.
Scripture calls for a single and consisent standard of justice. There is not one for the Jew and one for the Gentile, one for the Black and one for the White. God is not a respector of persons.
Are you familar with the Bowie Crisis Pregancy Center? It was founded by a good man and aquaintance, (dare I say friend?) Michael Bray.
Biblical Medical Ethics has this to say about Mike's book A Time to Kill:
For an excellent and more thorough discussion on the subject of a forceful response to abortion, read A Time to Kill, by Michael Bray. The author was imprisoned for four years "following the destruction of seven abortion facilities in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware."
Rev. Bray presents a reasoned, Biblical, and historical argument. Some of his conclusions may surprise you, as they did me.
I highly recommend the book, not because of its answers, but because of its thorough scholarship and challenge to a consistency in our Biblical ethics. It is available from Reformation Press
Cost is $20
To order - check or money order to:
Pro-Life Virginia
P. O. Box 2876
Chesapeake VA 23327
other reviews of the book:
"This book presents a rather convincing argument
for the use of force in the defense of the unborn.
I find myself on the horns of a personal dilemma in
this regard. I have some personal conscience issues
that would prevent me from the active use of force.
Yet I would not condemn those whose conscience has
led them in the other direction. I hope this book receives
the serious attention it deserves."
Dr. Carl Laney
Western Conservative Baptist Seminary.
"An enlightening, no holds barred book of Biblical truth.
Truly this is a book for our day. A Time to Kill makes Ecclesiastes 3:3 come alive."
Ecclesiastes 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up
Rev. Donald Spitz
Founder/Director Pro-Life Virginia
I have heard this remark before from detractors of equality for the preborn. With freedoms of any kind, people will sin. That should not stop the true freedom from being observed. We are to observe liberty in Christ do be able to do moral things, such as defend equally the preborn and the born regardless of humanistic restrictions against such. If one takes this liberty and sins, like with any liberty, (drink, sex, dance) that is his failure and not ours. We are just as responsisble to act in liberty of Christ.

Yes, God looks on the heart and man on the outside.
If we look closer atthe example of Phinehas we will see that there is no indication that his act of killing two people was the best or perfect wil of God. Even though God rewarded him, we do not see any indication that he was acting in obedience to God's direction for him. Rather God rewarded Phinehas for his ZEAL.
You will note tha non of the trials of these defenders who used lethal force were ever allowed to use/give their MOTIVE their INTENT to the jurors. Isn't that significant?! The jurors may have seen what God sees, the heart, and even if one out of twelve could not convict Hill and Kopp would be free to defend again.
What other trial can you name that the defendant was not able to offer his defense? At the time of Hill's trial there was another trial going on of a man who offered up the "twinkie" defense. The accused should be able to offer up his motive and intentions as his defense and allow the jury to toss them out if they hold no merit. The judges were afraid that one juror would see the truth that the preborn child has value. The preborn child is worthy of defending.
Thankfully God judges the heart and Paul Hill is seated under the thrown of God where the Maryters are (see Rev 6:9)
Please document this claim or retract. I am well aquainted with those who have acted on their convictions and those who advocate the equal defense of the preborn and have NEVER heard any such thing. I think you are mistaken. Probably you listened to a liberal media spin or the spin of those who devalue, detract or dehumanize the preborn child and are an accusser of the saints.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Provide a direct quote where I have ever said such or admit you are a liar.
Asking a question is not lying. Just answer it, yes or no and all will understand your stance. When you leave it open ended like this we all wonder do you think african americans are not fully human. You're the one that is able to put an end to the wondering. Instead you chose to leave your character in question.

reply from: JohnGlenn

If you are going to accuse; be a man and name names.
Who are these few who you claim condone abortionists killings and have no interest or concern for the abortionist, rather hope for his demise?

reply from: yoda

Those are pretty much the same conclusions I came to months ago, except for the religious parts. I find the logical case for refraining from attacking the morality of those who commit such crimes to be sound. Of course, that's still a far cry from advocating violence of any kind. But it's certainly a better position than some of the illogical, hysterical attacks I've seen here.

reply from: RobertFerguson

It's the only moral and logical conclusion to come to. If we believe the preborn are human beings/persons- then how can anyone discriminate against their innocence- instead favoring the guilty baby killer?

reply from: yoda

Well, the only way I know is to claim that we must "obey all laws", regardless of whether they force us to act immorally.


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