Another "Pro Lifer" kills...

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You are right about the Seattle incident. One dead, not six. I believe he shot six people in all, and I got the numbers confused with another incident in 1999 at a LA Jewish Community Center when another gunman shot and killed some people.

The point remains valid however. Many groups have experienced violence, and not just random street crime type violence. The interesting thing is how the authorities and media bend over backwards to excuse or minimize some types of violence but not others. For example, in the seattle shooting, the prosecutor made an interesting statement:

"Prosecutor Norm Maleng said, "Make no mistake, this is a hate crime," and that, "there is no evidence the shooting itself was an act of terrorism".[6] This statement has been used to describe Haq's actions as a hate crime rather than terrorism (see also definition of terrorism)." from Wikipedia.

Ummm... it was a hate crime because the attacker was on tape with 911 saying why he did it.

That's not the same as an organized group espousing violence -- and let's be honest, any group that genuinely believes that Doctors are "murdering babies" can't reach any other conclusion than the babies need to be protected at any cost. After all, they're babies.

That's where this rhetoric intersects and encourages violence.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

If the right wingers were consistent, or at least honest...if they believed abortion was murder, and since they believe in killing those who murder (i.e. capital punishment) then there would be no other logical position than to kill abortionists.

The fact that abortion is legal doesn't deter their position that abortion is murder, so why would killing someone who "kills" babies stop them from executing such people?

The law is secondary to morality in their book, simply because laws are made by men, and morality is made by God...

That's why we get the lip service that the killer of the abortion provider was "wrong" but in their heart they believe it was right to kill a "killer" of babies...

Quote from bigdavediode:

Ummm... it was a hate crime because the attacker was on tape with 911 saying why he did it.

That's not the same as an organized group espousing violence -- and let's be honest, any group that genuinely believes that Doctors are "murdering babies" can't reach any other conclusion than the babies need to be protected at any cost. After all, they're babies.

That's where this rhetoric intersects and encourages violence.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

If the right wingers were consistent, or at least honest...if they believed abortion was murder, and since they believe in killing those who murder (i.e. capital punishment) then there would be no other logical position than to kill abortionists.

The fact that abortion is legal doesn't deter their position that abortion is murder, so why would killing someone who "kills" babies, i.e. executing such people not be a good and "righteous" thing to do?

The law is secondary to morality in their book, simply because laws are made by men, and morality is made by God...

That's why we get the lip service that the killer of the abortion provider was "wrong" but in their heart they believe it was right to kill a "killer" of babies...

Quote from bigdavediode:

Ummm... it was a hate crime because the attacker was on tape with 911 saying why he did it.

That's not the same as an organized group espousing violence -- and let's be honest, any group that genuinely believes that Doctors are "murdering babies" can't reach any other conclusion than the babies need to be protected at any cost. After all, they're babies.

That's where this rhetoric intersects and encourages violence.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

If the Supreme Court struck down murder laws in California and a man came to kill your neighbor-legally-would you intervene?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the right wingers were consistent, or at least honest...if they believed abortion was murder, and since they believe in killing those who murder (i.e. capital punishment) then there would be no other logical position than to kill abortionists.

The fact that abortion is legal doesn't deter their position that abortion is murder, so why would killing someone who "kills" babies, i.e. executing such people not be a good and "righteous" thing to do?

The law is secondary to morality in their book, simply because laws are made by men, and morality is made by God...

That's why we get the lip service that the killer of the abortion provider was "wrong" but in their heart they believe it was right to kill a "killer" of babies...

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Straw man.

Try to stay on point.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

If the Supreme Court struck down murder laws in California and a man came to kill your neighbor-legally-would you intervene?

 

[vilas]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

What does that "view" have to do with the cold blooded murder of Tiller?

Does the rule of law and our system of justice mean anything to the "Pro Lifers?"

You talk of your law which is meaningless in context of God's Law. God gave procreative powers for a purpose - to teach humans to care for the helpless - not for fornicating at will. Use self-control if you don't want babies. The Dr who performed abortions was breaking God's law. The man who killed him sacrificed hiw own life to make a point. He made one mistake though. Had he given himself up voluntarily, he would have made a statement that would have blazed his name across the globe and brought about total ban on abortions (except in emergency cases) nearer. Don't depend on politicians to solve human problems - they are too concerned about getting elected the next time and "leaving their name behind" like the present Prez is doing.

 

[vilas]

Who do you think will get to enter heaven ? I am sure, the Killer of Dr. T would. And Dr. T ? In everlasting Hell.

BTW, no one seems to give any thought about how to advance the work started by the man who sacrificed his own life in stopping Dr T from carrying out his nefarious acts.

I have a suggestion : Pro-lifers should send a baby-shoe in a parcel to all the liberals and Democrats. Send two baby-shoes to white House. Keep a list and stop at 49 million for the present. Send one every time an abortion is performed.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"The Dr who performed abortions was breaking God's law."

That's your belief and opinion, and as long as you keep it to yourself there is no problem...

Quote from vilas:

You talk of your law which is meaningless in context of God's Law. God gave procreative powers for a purpose - to teach humans to care for the helpless - not for fornicating at will. Use self-control if you don't want babies. The Dr who performed abortions was breaking God's law. The man who killed him sacrificed hiw own life to make a point. He made one mistake though. Had he given himself up voluntarily, he would have made a statement that would have blazed his name across the globe and brought about total ban on abortions (except in emergency cases) nearer. Don't depend on politicians to solve human problems - they are too concerned about getting elected the next time and "leaving their name behind" like the present Prez is doing.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the right wingers were consistent, or at least honest...if they believed abortion was murder, and since they believe in killing those who murder (i.e. capital punishment) then there would be no other logical position than to kill abortionists.

Murder is a legal term determined after litigation. Litigation is the process of the accused exercising their due process. Any Capitol murder defendant is given due process of law. An unborn baby should be given its rights of Due process. After 91 days of pregnancy some rights of due process to start to apply to the pre-born human child. By 9 months the baby has many rights.
What makes 91 days so special to apply some degree of Due process to the baby. Why not 90 days?

On the other hand if you believe that the baby is property of the owner /mother, like a Negro slave from the past, how can you not agree the mother should have the right to do as she pleases up to 9 months.
What we have is not an policy based on philosophy but on social compromise.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"On the other hand if you believe that the baby is property of the owner /mother, like a Negro slave from the past..."

Negro slaves were already human beings, a fetus is not a human being...

Quote from Mercor:

Murder is a legal term determined after litigation. Litigation is the process of the accused exercising their due process. Any Capitol murder defendant is given due process of law. An unborn baby should be given its rights of Due process. After 91 days of pregnancy some rights of due process to start to apply to the pre-born human child. By 9 months the baby has many rights.
What makes 91 days so special to apply some degree of Due process to the baby. Why not 90 days?

On the other hand if you believe that the baby is property of the owner /mother, like a Negro slave from the past, how can you not agree the mother should have the right to do as she pleases up to 9 months.
What we have is not an policy based on philosophy but on social compromise.