Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Doctor murdered by anti-choice terrorist

245678

Comments

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539

    Suspect was involved in the "Freemen" movement


    Leach said he met Roeder in Topeka when he went there to visit Shelley Shannon, who was in prison for the 1993 shooting of Tiller.

    "He told me about a lot of conspiracy stuff and showed me how to take the magnetic strip out of a five-dollar bill," Leach said. "He said it was to keep the government from tracking your money."

    Roeder, who in the 1990s was a manufacturing assemblyman, also was involved in the "Freemen" movement.

    "Freemen" was a term adopted by those who claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system, which they called common-law courts. Adherents declared themselves exempt from laws, regulations and taxes and often filed liens against judges, prosecutors and others, claiming that money was owed to them as compensation.

    In April 1996, Roeder was arrested in Topeka after Shawnee County sheriff's deputies stopped him for not having a proper license plate. In his car, officers said they found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder and two 9-volt batteries, with one connected to a switch that could have been used to trigger a bomb.

    Roeder, who then lived in Silver Lake, Kan., was stopped because he had an improper license plate that read "Sovereign private property. Immunity declared by law. Non-commercial American.'' Authorities said the plate was typical of those used by Freemen.

    Roeder was arraigned on one count of criminal use of explosives and misdemeanor charges of driving on a suspended license, failure to carry a Kansas registration and failure to carry liability insurance.

    He was found guilty and sentenced in June 1996 to 24 months of probation with intensive supervision and ordered to dissociate himself from anti-government groups that advocated violence.



    This country is going down ever so much each day with crazies.


    We are busy worrying about Al Qaeda, when these nutjob whackadoos are running around the United States loose. This guy was so under the delusion that he was some kind of "freedom fighter", that he made his own license plates to drive around with. That and materials to make bombs. I wonder what would have happened if he fit the Middle Eastern profile if he'd still be running around on the streets.

    It makes me curious. I wonder if he bought a legal gun or had illegal guns. He's a felon so they shouldn't have been legal.


    Well, just a few more of these whackadoos with bombs, one or two more school shootings, a few more death threats made at government officials and maybe the government will finally take its head out of its butt and put moratoriums on gun sales, round these crazies up using the Patriot Act and send them to Gitmo too.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413

    I'm not even going to get into what he did or whether he had it coming.  My problem is with where he was killed.  I mean, the only thing that separates us from Beruit is that we don't blow people away in church.

    My question to pro-life folks is this: is ending abortion worth destroying the house of God?  Because that's what happened here.  And when I say the house of God, I'm not just saying one particular church, but all churches.  Because if people start taking their fight to end abortion into churches, no church is safe from this kind of thing.  And if no church is safe from this kind of thing, it means that no church can ever be a place of refuge or peace.

    See, I think the problem is that too many in the pro-life movement think that abortion must end no matter what the cost, and that acts of sacrificial righteousness will somehow make abortion end...sacrificial acts of righteousness like knowingly getting permabanned from MMORPG.com just to make a point that could have been made in other ways.  But sometimes we sacrifice too much; like the notion that MMORPG.com is a safe place to bring our family....kind of like sacrificing the notion that the church is a safe place to bring our family in an era when people take the abortion fight to the church floor with guns.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379
    Originally posted by Precusor


    Tiller also aborted 5 to 7 months old babies to folks who had no medical reasons.

     
    $5.000 was all that was needed.



     

    I'm sure you meant fetus and not babies?  As far as a 7 month fetus is concerned - do you have a link or any proof of it?

    Please note that I'm in no way denying that you are telling the truth or implying that you are telling lies, infact, I claim total ignorance of this story and I'm simply asking you to enlighten me.  If you don't have acceptable proof then please respond to this post with a retraction of your statement and reword it as something more accurate to your available evidence.

    Thank you for you time I look forward to hearing from you.

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • Squirt5Squirt5 Member Posts: 201

    I can post shock images too Draenor but they don't mean a thing to me; what seperates me from you is after I see that image I get control of my emotions, you knee-jerk react with them in all the wrong ways.

    And for those who feel no sympathy for the doctor, I hope you see your hypocrisy. It only goes to show that you don't actually care what is really right and what is really wrong, you only care that you're on the winning side.

    Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell

  • goneglockingoneglockin Member UncommonPosts: 706

    If it weren't for abortion, I'd have 5 kids by now.  : )

    During my medic clinicals I got to work a SIDS baby and one that was shaken to death.  It was disturbing and I could see how people freak out over abortion.  But it is just a religious, child-worshipping nation freaking out.

    You know what bothers me more than dead babies?  All the american orphan children that can't find loving homes.  They bounce around from place to place, each packed with kids to maximize that government check.  Real families/homes only want to adopt little babies.

    If you're pre-born you're fine... Pre-school, you're fucked.

    Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.

  • devilisciousdeviliscious Member UncommonPosts: 4,359
    Originally posted by Wickersham

    Originally posted by Precusor


    Tiller also aborted 5 to 7 months old babies to folks who had no medical reasons.

     
    $5.000 was all that was needed.



     

    I'm sure you meant fetus and not babies?  As far as a 7 month fetus is concerned - do you have a link or any proof of it?

    Please note that I'm in no way denying that you are telling the truth or implying that you are telling lies, infact, I claim total ignorance of this story and I'm simply asking you to enlighten me.  If you don't have acceptable proof then please respond to this post with a retraction of your statement and reword it as something more accurate to your available evidence.

    Thank you for you time I look forward to hearing from you.

    It was reported by local new agencies here that he was a late term abortion doctor, and I too had heard he performed abortions up to 5-7 months. Baby, would be correct. This law is out of date with modern technology. SInce the advancements in medicine have now resulted in infants as young as 21 weeks old surviving outside the womb, the laws need to stay updated with current technology. The ruling was based  on the premise that the child could not survive outside the womb, this has been proven wrong 1,000 fold since the ruling, and is why they have been cruely killing the infants once they are born alive as well, just leaving them out to die, or stabbing them in the back of the skull and sucking out their brains.

    To try and dehumanize these children by calling them anything by calling them a "fetus" rather than a child may help you sleep at night , but it is no different than "put the lotion on it's skin". it is simply a term to try and avoid seeing them as the child they are. This law is barbaric and out of date. With advancements in medicine, most doctors have come to realize this. They swear to save lives, not take them. Though I do not condone a person taking it upon themselves to hunt this man down in cold blood, I also do not condone the slaughter of our nations innocent children. I have seen their faces, seen the medical evidence,  heard the voice of those that survived abortion, telling us they DO want to live, and heard from the plaintiff in ROE vs Wade who says she was wrong and would like it overturned. It is the right thing to do.  Not even the plaintiff , who decided to never have an abortion, feels it is wrong, why would we still keep doing this?

  • goneglockingoneglockin Member UncommonPosts: 706

    Because no one wants to ruin their life just because they got knocked up.  Using legal recourse to ensure that any act of conception results in pumping out a unit is pretty silly I think.

    There's going to be gray area where aborted babies could survive outside the womb but that doesn't mean they have the right to, so long as the mother has responsibility for that life- because no one certainly has a right to tell someone you are going to have a child, like it or not.

    Maybe if the state automatically becomes the legal guardian of a child the moment it survives outside the womb.  Sure.  But what the hell are we gonna do with em'?  Do we wanna pay for all that?  Unchecked breeding doesn't work in civilized society with social services- too much strain can and will break the system.

    The only time this ever worked is when lots of expendible soldiers and cheap/free manual labor was needed- and life expectancy was short.

    So I think it's ridiculous to try and make abortion go away entirely because the world would be worse by it.  There has to be a grey area and the further out that area is from "no abortions" the better.  More hoops for the right-to-lifers to jump through.

    Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    I'm not even going to get into what he did or whether he had it coming.  My problem is with where he was killed.  I mean, the only thing that separates us from Beruit is that we don't blow people away in church.


    Then there isn't anything that separates us from Beirut then.


    These types of "Christians" have been bombing churches with people inside since at least 1963 in America because they were following God's mandates from the Bible they claim. Just ask those four little girls they killed because they believed God didn't want intergration of American schools. And they've been burning churches longer than that, lol.

    The Middle East does not have the monopoly on this and if it's the only thing that separates us...

  • devilisciousdeviliscious Member UncommonPosts: 4,359
    Originally posted by goneglockin


    Because no one wants to ruin their life just because they got knocked up.  Using legal recourse to ensure that any act of conception results in pumping out a unit is pretty silly I think.
    There's going to be gray area where aborted babies could survive outside the womb but that doesn't mean they have the right to, so long as the mother has responsibility for that life- because no one certainly has a right to tell someone you are going to have a child, like it or not.
    Maybe if the state automatically becomes the legal guardian of a child the moment it survives outside the womb.  Sure.  But what the hell are we gonna do with em'?  Do we wanna pay for all that?  Unchecked breeding doesn't work in civilized society with social services- too much strain can and will break the system.
    The only time this ever worked is when lots of expendible soldiers and cheap/free manual labor was needed- and life expectancy was short.
    So I think it's ridiculous to try and make abortion go away entirely because the world would be worse by it.  There has to be a grey area and the further out that area is from "no abortions" the better.  More hoops for the right-to-lifers to jump through.

    The same laws that protect children from being thrown off a bridge or drowned by their mothers, are the same laws that should protect these children.  Murdering children is not a form of birth control. If you are not ready for a child, don't have sex. People need to just accept that any time you have sex it is possible, even if you use birth control. The adoption list is 3 year minimum wait for infants, my friends are on that list and have been waiting 5 years for an infant.  There are many homes waiting for these children. That does not appear to be an issue for babies, just older children with disciplinary problems. There is no " grey " area when it comes to murdering children, sorry,  you can have an operation to ensure you aren't going to have children you do not want, but taking a childs life should never be an option.

    The only time it should ever be considered is if we are foreced to choose between saving the life of the mother or the child, and this only accounts for .01% of all abortions done in the US. With todays medicine we can save both the mother and the child, and this is very rare that we are forced to choose whose life to save.  That is the only time that it should be even considered. That is the only "grey" area when it comes to saving lives.

    In this day and age there is support for mothers who are not prepared. It is only a few months of their life, vs the child's entire life. There are even people willing to pay to support these women during the pregnancy if they choose to allow them to adopt their infant.  I do not see life the way you do,  it is the childs life as well, and they deserve the same rights given to you and me to live it. 

    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours? That is the responsible option.

     

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by deviliscious

    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours?


    I think tubal ligatiions are covered in the New Testament as well in Corinthians, right? Or was it Revealations? I'm sure it's one of those.

    You place a religious, moral judgement on someone who has an abortion, but not the same biblical one on yourself for...?

    Religious hypocrisy, super job. Two different yardsticks for the same thing called "sin".


    I'd be careful. Tubal ligatiions aren't a 100% "done deal" either. The Word says, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

  • LeKinKLeKinK Member Posts: 899
    Originally posted by deviliscious

    Originally posted by goneglockin


    Because no one wants to ruin their life just because they got knocked up.  Using legal recourse to ensure that any act of conception results in pumping out a unit is pretty silly I think.
    There's going to be gray area where aborted babies could survive outside the womb but that doesn't mean they have the right to, so long as the mother has responsibility for that life- because no one certainly has a right to tell someone you are going to have a child, like it or not.
    Maybe if the state automatically becomes the legal guardian of a child the moment it survives outside the womb.  Sure.  But what the hell are we gonna do with em'?  Do we wanna pay for all that?  Unchecked breeding doesn't work in civilized society with social services- too much strain can and will break the system.
    The only time this ever worked is when lots of expendible soldiers and cheap/free manual labor was needed- and life expectancy was short.
    So I think it's ridiculous to try and make abortion go away entirely because the world would be worse by it.  There has to be a grey area and the further out that area is from "no abortions" the better.  More hoops for the right-to-lifers to jump through.

    The same laws that protect children from being thrown off a bridge or drowned by their mothers, are the same laws that should protect these children.  Murdering children is not a form of birth control. If you are not ready for a child, don't have sex. People need to just accept that any time you have sex it is possible, even if you use birth control. The adoption list is 3 year minimum wait for infants, my friends are on that list and have been waiting 5 years for an infant.  There are many homes waiting for these children. That does not appear to be an issue for babies, just older children with disciplinary problems. There is no " grey " area when it comes to murdering children, sorry,  you can have an operation to ensure you aren't going to have children you do not want, but taking a childs life should never be an option.

    The only time it should ever be considered is if we are foreced to choose between saving the life of the mother or the child, and this only accounts for .01% of all abortions done in the US. With todays medicine we can save both the mother and the child, and this is very rare that we are forced to choose whose life to save.  That is the only time that it should be even considered. That is the only "grey" area when it comes to saving lives.

    In this day and age there is support for mothers who are not prepared. It is only a few months of their life, vs the child's entire life. There are even people willing to pay to support these women during the pregnancy if they choose to allow them to adopt their infant.  I do not see life the way you do,  it is the childs life as well, and they deserve the same rights given to you and me to live it. 

    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours? That is the responsible option.

     



     

    What if the women got raped and a child is made?  Or if you know you won't be able to sustain a child? Suddently it's more then .01%

  • hooptyhoopty Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by Precusor


    Got no sympathy for anyone who kills fully grown babies for profit.

     

    What even worst..Here the Dr.Killer goes to church and gives blood money as a offering..What a hypocrit..

    Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"

  • hooptyhoopty Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by LeKinK

    Originally posted by deviliscious

    Originally posted by goneglockin


    Because no one wants to ruin their life just because they got knocked up.  Using legal recourse to ensure that any act of conception results in pumping out a unit is pretty silly I think.
    There's going to be gray area where aborted babies could survive outside the womb but that doesn't mean they have the right to, so long as the mother has responsibility for that life- because no one certainly has a right to tell someone you are going to have a child, like it or not.
    Maybe if the state automatically becomes the legal guardian of a child the moment it survives outside the womb.  Sure.  But what the hell are we gonna do with em'?  Do we wanna pay for all that?  Unchecked breeding doesn't work in civilized society with social services- too much strain can and will break the system.
    The only time this ever worked is when lots of expendible soldiers and cheap/free manual labor was needed- and life expectancy was short.
    So I think it's ridiculous to try and make abortion go away entirely because the world would be worse by it.  There has to be a grey area and the further out that area is from "no abortions" the better.  More hoops for the right-to-lifers to jump through.

    The same laws that protect children from being thrown off a bridge or drowned by their mothers, are the same laws that should protect these children.  Murdering children is not a form of birth control. If you are not ready for a child, don't have sex. People need to just accept that any time you have sex it is possible, even if you use birth control. The adoption list is 3 year minimum wait for infants, my friends are on that list and have been waiting 5 years for an infant.  There are many homes waiting for these children. That does not appear to be an issue for babies, just older children with disciplinary problems. There is no " grey " area when it comes to murdering children, sorry,  you can have an operation to ensure you aren't going to have children you do not want, but taking a childs life should never be an option.

    The only time it should ever be considered is if we are foreced to choose between saving the life of the mother or the child, and this only accounts for .01% of all abortions done in the US. With todays medicine we can save both the mother and the child, and this is very rare that we are forced to choose whose life to save.  That is the only time that it should be even considered. That is the only "grey" area when it comes to saving lives.

    In this day and age there is support for mothers who are not prepared. It is only a few months of their life, vs the child's entire life. There are even people willing to pay to support these women during the pregnancy if they choose to allow them to adopt their infant.  I do not see life the way you do,  it is the childs life as well, and they deserve the same rights given to you and me to live it. 

    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours? That is the responsible option.

     



     

    What if the women got raped and a child is made?  Or if you know you won't be able to sustain a child? Suddently it's more then .01%

     

    Dont worry if the guy has aids its death to all three..and that is more than .01%

    Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"

  • eight675309eight675309 Member Posts: 246

    Three stats:

    At least 60,000 abortions performed.

    At least 100 of the late term abortions that were performed were done citing "emotional" or "psychological" issues with the mother, meaning neither the baby nor the mothers were ever in jeopardy health-wise, yet he still performed the abortions of viable babies.

    1 less piece of trash on this earth.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by Briansho


    "This is particularly heart-wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace."
    There's America's terrorist. He is just a concerned Christian, like all those crazy Muslims that are blowing people up and killing children for their beliefs and religion.

     

    I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was an automatic assumption that someone going into a Christian church with a gun to murder an usher in that Christian church was indeed a 'concerned Christian.' I can't find anything in the Christian philosophy which leads me to believe that the position of the assassin is authentically associable with the faith in question any more than someone walking into a vegetarian restaurant biting into a live chicken and claiming that they did it because they're a PETA supporter rings anything like truth.

    It also makes them incomparable to Muslims committing jihad. The Bible does not say 'murder abortion doctors in their churches', but the Quran does say 'kill them wherever you find them.' The former is an uncharacteristic action for the philosophy in question. The latter is simply doing exactly what the founder of the latter philosophy did in his own lifetime, as a historical fact. The former is not imitation of an authentic, authoritative rolemodel. The latter is.

    The anti-Christian bias doesn't help anything. There are atheists who are pro-life, and I'm sure you'll find that there are Hindu's and Muslims who think late-term infanticidalists are vile and should be wiped off the earth.

    It should also be added the sheer hypocrisy with which the pro-choice movement is picking up this story. They're happily proclaiming that the late term abortionist is a good Christian man, compatible with the Christian world view, and that the murderer in question must be a bad Christian man, compatible with the Christian world view. Make up your minds. Both seem to have been hypocrites. One hides his murder behind the sensibilities of the Christian faith, and the other hides his murder behind the sensibilities of the Christian faith. Neither are compatible with the Christian faith. Both were kidding themselves. Was the doctor buying his atonement with attendance, and the pretence of righteousness? At which point was he going to say 'I can't reconcile the morality I claim to represent with what I do to earn large amounts of money... I'm going to quit and go build houses for the homeless.' At which point was the shooter going to say 'I hate what this man does, but I won't translate that into action.' It sounds like the pretence came full circle for both of them.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by Briansho


    "This is particularly heart-wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace."
    There's America's terrorist. He is just a concerned Christian, like all those crazy Muslims that are blowing people up and killing children for their beliefs and religion.

     

    Oh man...

     

    Then I saw the sig, and it explained everything...

     

    ""If God were suddently condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon men, he would kill himself."

    - Alexander Dumas {1802 - 1870}

     

    Ironic, really, that the Christian tradition is founded on the claim that God indeed 'condemn' himself to live the life which man inflicted upon himself, and man killed God.

    Why does the atheist position always resort to endless whining about what horrible things have been inflicted upon man by a being that doesn't exist, as his excuse for why he himself is the worst culprit in the greatest crimes and vices in human history. Talk about indulging an illusion to masquerade your own failure.

    I love the quotable from GK Chesterton, who responded to the invitation of the Editor of a major British newspaper to, along with a number of other prominent literary and philosophical figures, offer submissions on the question 'What is wrong with the world?' He replied simply:

    "Dear Sir,

    I am.

    Sincerely, GK Chesterton."

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by hoopty

     Dont worry if the guy has aids its death to all three..and that is more than .01%


    The funny thing is, I seriously doubt all of these outraged people at abortion would be the first in line to adopt any AIDS, Down Syndrome, crackbaby, handicapped, blind, violent aggressive, or otherwise medically challengeed child.


    It's always easier to stand outside the restaurant and advocate how great the food is, if you don't actually have to go in and eat it.


    Sure they MAY adopt, but only if it's the "perfect" baby. Sounds so materialistic, doesn't it?


    I personally don't support abortion, but I certainly don't support the murder of people for medically performing them. That's pretty idiotic.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by goneglockin


    If it weren't for abortion, I'd have 5 kids by now.  : )
    During my medic clinicals I got to work a SIDS baby and one that was shaken to death.  It was disturbing and I could see how people freak out over abortion.  But it is just a religious, child-worshipping nation freaking out.
    You know what bothers me more than dead babies?  All the american orphan children that can't find loving homes.  They bounce around from place to place, each packed with kids to maximize that government check.  Real families/homes only want to adopt little babies.
    If you're pre-born you're fine... Pre-school, you're fucked.

     

    Oh yeah... the answer to asshole parents, crack addicts, uncontrollable irresponsible sexual compulsives and social decay is to claim that infanticide in any way controls the problem, to imply that it in any way is an improvement of morality and human responsibility, and not in itself actually the manifestation of the lowest low to which a depraved human can sink. Typical socialism... legislate the unthinkable in order to never require personal accountability of the irresponsible and degenerate, and make the unthinkable the 'standard' for decent society, because the reprobate won't aspire to anything better.

  • kazmokazmo Member Posts: 715
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by deviliscious
     
    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours?

     

    I think tubal ligatiions are covered in the New Testament as well in Corinthians, right? Or was it Revealations? I'm sure it's one of those.

     

    You place a religious, moral judgement on someone who has an abortion, but not the same biblical one on yourself for...?

    Religious hypocrisy, super job. Two different yardsticks for the same thing called "sin".

     



    I'd be careful. Tubal ligatiions aren't a 100% "done deal" either. The Word says, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

    I am sick and tired of your biased straw-man arguments popinjay.

     

    It is not strictly a "religious belief" you fool. Devilicious said nothing about religion, yet your bias rhetoric sees otherwise. It's a basic ethical principle to not have abortion as a choice of birth control. There are untold amounts of options to prevent a pregnancy should two people desire to have sex. Number one being the wholly effective and simple method of.. get this.. Not having sex until you're ready. I subscribe to the latter method, not because it's religious, it's just responsible.

    I've recently turned 24 and have no regrets for not having sex until I'm perfectly ready for receiving all the responsibility that comes with having a child.



    No amount of juvenile humor and peer-pressure will ever make me think otherwise. America is pathetic when it comes to this. People are ridiculed for not having sex (wtf?), like it's a big joke, yet when it comes to abortion it's not a big joke? Like you're not a competent human until you have compulsive sex? Am I getting this right? Like omg, sex is for reproduction? Like totally get out?!

    Abortion's intentions were for victims of rape and instances when the mother could die from complications. It isn't a service that a 17 year old slut keeps on her speed-dial, "just in case".



    Aborting a child because you were lazy, drunk or didn't bother take the necessary precautions irrefutably makes you an absolute disgusting human being, no exceptions.

     

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by goneglockin


    There's going to be gray area where aborted babies could survive outside the womb but that doesn't mean they have the right to, so long as the mother has responsibility for that life- because no one certainly has a right to tell someone you are going to have a child, like it or not.
    Maybe if the state automatically becomes the legal guardian of a child the moment it survives outside the womb.  Sure.  But what the hell are we gonna do with em'?  Do we wanna pay for all that?  Unchecked breeding doesn't work in civilized society with social services- too much strain can and will break the system.
    The only time this ever worked is when lots of expendible soldiers and cheap/free manual labor was needed- and life expectancy was short.
    So I think it's ridiculous to try and make abortion go away entirely because the world would be worse by it.  There has to be a grey area and the further out that area is from "no abortions" the better.  More hoops for the right-to-lifers to jump through.

     

    Well, you're on Hitler-esque grounds, then, and you have to deal with the comparison. International human rights law deems that any 'viable' human being which could survive autonomously, regardless of artificial life support, has a right to life. You need to decide if you want a ruling, and all that it entails, which states that if you are not capable of caring for yourself, whoever takes biological or physical responsibility for caring for you has the right to say whether you live or die based on their sense of personal convenience.

    And the claptrap about 'social services' being overloaded is utter nonsense. There is NO shortage in the Western world of parents lining up for undamaged, untainted babies. The issue of asshole parents abandoning damaged children to social care, or abusing their children and leaving them psychologically troubled is an incomparable issue which makes no testament on the right to life of the infant, and every testament on the responsible place for a compulsory sterilisation order for assholes, gangbangers and crack addicts, not to mention sexual compulsives lacking in self-control and intelligent thought.

    The truth of the matter is that responsible, ordinary, moral people aren't lining up in large numbers at abortion clinics. Those statistics are dominated by people who have had multiple abortions (got burned, and never learned), by people who couldn't control their personal behavior and acted impulsively and irresponsibly, and by people who put personal pleasure and convenience before fundamental issues of age-old human rights. There is no difference, in this regard, between modern 'America', and ancient paganism, where to celebrate the abandon of care and the revelry of fertility rites, parents would bring infant babies and burn them alive on altars to pagan gods believing it would be more fortuitous down the line for them. Societies that aspire to survival and decency have no place legislating for the dysfunctional and making the 'cover up' for their vices the 'standard' for the rest of us to live up to. If nothing else, the abortion rate is a testimonial to the failure of the promotion of personal accountability and moral dignity in modern society.

    It is idiotic to claim that taking abortion away makes the world worse, because the uptake of abortion has not been the result of a moral resurgence, nor has it yielded a more ordered or decent society, rather it has been entirely symptomatic (rather than causal) of the massive decline of society. Indeed, many nations have successfully maintained moral order AND opposition to abortion, others have replaced an 'abortionist' libertarianism with anti-abortion, pro-responsibility education, and shown massive success in moral regeneration, in parts of Africa particularly.

    And there doesn't 'have to be a grey area.' It is a pretty absolute decision, it is only your own sense of how you are regarded and how de-humanised you are prepared to allow yourself to be in your objectivist thinking about human life and your indifference to it, which is in the balance. You are literally a philosophical barrier away from total objectivism and indifference to human life, since you demonstrate that you will make your moral decisions based on utilitarianism, socialist social engineering, and the flimsy assertions of politicised undemonstrable science.

  • //\//\oo//\//\oo Member Posts: 2,767
    Originally posted by Precusor


    Ofc murder is wrong and its against the law but i really don't feel anything for that poor doc.

     

      Exactly how none of us pro-choicers would feel anything for you if you were to get gunned down. In fact all of us atheists would feel glee at the murder of all of your religious icons and the razing of your churches.

    I think it's mostly ironic how you separate yourselves from radical Islam, yet really behave the same way; of course there will be no tanks entering Rome.

     

     

    This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.

  • kazmokazmo Member Posts: 715
    Originally posted by //\//\oo

    Originally posted by Precusor


    Ofc murder is wrong and its against the law but i really don't feel anything for that poor doc.

     

      Exactly how none of us pro-choicers would feel anything for you if you were to get gunned down. In fact all of us atheists would feel glee at the murder of all of your religious icons and the razing of your churches.

    I think it's mostly ironic how you separate yourselves from radical Islam, yet really behave the same way; of course there will be no tanks entering Rome.

     

     

    The hypocrisy in your statement is simply astonishing.

  • //\//\oo//\//\oo Member Posts: 2,767
    Originally posted by aeroplane22




     
     

    The hypocrisy in your statement is simply astonishing.

     

       Not as astonishing as your grasp of sarcasm.

     

    This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.

  • TheTenTheTen Member Posts: 33
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by deviliscious
     
    My tubes are tied, why aren't yours?

     

    I think tubal ligatiions are covered in the New Testament as well in Corinthians, right? Or was it Revealations? I'm sure it's one of those.

     

    You place a religious, moral judgement on someone who has an abortion, but not the same biblical one on yourself for...?

    Religious hypocrisy, super job. Two different yardsticks for the same thing called "sin".

     



    I'd be careful. Tubal ligatiions aren't a 100% "done deal" either. The Word says, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

     

    These sound like confused ramblings. Tell you what... don't make any judgements or prescriptions on the subject until you move out of 'I'm sure it's one of those' and into 'it says specifically in this specific place...'

    I've studied religious texts my whole life, and I can assure you that it doesn't say a thing about 'tubal ligations' in the Bible. But if you want to discuss the basis of the pro-life v pro-choice argument based on Biblical morality, I'll tell you what it does say...

    It says 'no adultery'. You just emptied the abortion clinic by between 30 and 40% of its customers.

    It says 'no fornication'. You just emptied more than 50% of the remainder.

    It says 'you take responsibility for your family, and you raise your children properly and morally'; you provide for them, and it presents the model repeatedly of the pattern of parental love. It does not say 'you look after your children unless there's famine, or hardship in the land, and then you murder them so they're not a drain on your resources.' I can't think of a more abominable insult to those who've grown up in abject poverty and done good, and by contrast, in my experience, the children who've grown up in deprivation are a damn sight more moral, more decent, and more 'human' than the little assholes who grew up in plenty, and then go sowing their wild oats, and moan that their biology works. You've just left about 2% of the customers of the abortion clinic, based on Biblical morality.

    The Bible does not say 'if ye art raped, ye may murder your child.' Instead it says 'don't repay evil with evil, repay evil with good.' And it teaches that out of adversity, out of depravity, can spring the fresh shoots of love, of determination, of human endurance and survival. It also doesn't say 'if ye are raped, and thine national laws have provision for the prosecution of your rapist, ye may opt to defend  Bubba because he your 'boo' and you don' wan' get him in no trouble too bad.' It doesn't say 'cover it up so you can let the rapist off, and just kill the baby to get rid of the evidence.' It says, for want of a better term, 'keep your integrity, maintain your morality, and make the best in all circumstances.'

    So how many percent are left in the abortionists' waiting room, if we use Biblical morality as the standard for what is, and isn't allowed, and whether it constitutes a trade-off of tit-for-tat moral equivalency?

    0.1%?

    For them there's this little doozy: 'Thou shalt not murder.' The age old principle that you do not conspire to kill, with foreknowledge, any person by means of effecting your own convenience, profit, satisfaction or benefit. And if that doesn't work, then try it's sister instruction, effectively one and the same: 'do to others as you would have them do unto you' - put others first, starting with the most innocent, those most dependent on you. Personally, I couldn't betray the biological trust that my own natural biological offspring would put in me as a parent for their wellbeing and survival. I have some decency and dignity as a human, and I can't dehumanise myself to the point which even animals will not stoop.

  • SabiancymSabiancym Member UncommonPosts: 3,150

    Ahh pro-lifers.

    "Killing is wrong....unless we do it."

Sign In or Register to comment.