Posted on 06/01/2009 8:37:48 AM PDT by rintense
Look this is silly. I've already stated that murder is not an option. Perhaps you could try another debate tactic rather than ad hominem or completely false assertions?
I love that picture, thank you.
“The question is not that difficult.”
It is for those raised in an ambiguous world. as are most educated in today’s public school without receiving strong family articulation of life’s value at home.
Why is it that only a week ago we were celebrating poll shifts in favor of the pro-life position? If everything were black and white, polls wouldn’t shift.
I would remind those who to any extent condone the murder of Dr. Tiller that the biggest public relations coup in the history of the pro-life movement came through a minister who pursuaded Norma McCarvey to a pro-life position. He didn’t shoot her. Conversely, the murders of abortionists set the movement back each and every time.
;^)
I’d like to see Sarah make a statement on Slim Shady’s ass bib.
LOL!!
Payback is a bit*h. Punk.
Do not play God. That is not your job.
They are your words, not mine.
So when the law does nothing to protect a 9 month old in the womb from a murderer...what is the answer?
Keep trying to change the law and be a voice for all life. Tiller will not be the last doctor to perform this evil act. Is the answer to keep killing doctors who do?
No, I simply said that I disagree.
We have waited 40 years for an answer to this seemingly "black and white" question, yet their is almost NO discussion of it and certainly no solution discussed. For 40 years, we are just told, "That is the way it is, and the way it will remain." The discussions happen in NARAL and the ACLU, and the other argument is only discussed in churches and conservative groups. Never the two should meet and discuss.
This is no different than the "Dred Scott" decision. When the Dred Scott decision came down, it became blatantly clear that state laws wouldn't be honored and the foundation of the Declaration of Independence was a sham, that all me are created equal, and the value of human life would rest in the hands of the courts to decide who's life is worth something and who else would be declared "non human". We have now devolved into starving women that are disabled, and now deciding abortions are warranted if it is a girl and you wanted a boy. What this decision allows is the wholesale slaughter of as many humans as needed to satisfy the courts that their idea of "person hood" is protected. This is the price we pay for leaving God out of our decisions.
We did this before in the Dred Scott decision and it led to the bloodiest conflict in our History. At some point a faulty law will become self evident, and the law will change, or the blood will flow, one way or another. The nation was divided on the Terri Schiavo decision, and somehow the women and children at Ruby Ridge and Waco were expendable to make the greater point that the government can infringe on the Second Amendment. This isn't so much a difference between how much power the law has, but the evidence that we have a bad law. It has become obvious by now that the next step on this slope, is deciding who is worthy of life saving treatments if the state is paying for your medical care. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death, and we can't place a worm on a terrorist, then what has happened to the inalienable rights that so many have fought and died for? A black person that believes in abortion must now ask themselves, what if a simple majority decides that they are not human again and we can buy and sell people again? If abortion was favored by 95% of the people, that doesn't make it correct. The principles that founded this country demand that objects with DNA, their own brain waves, their own heart beat, their own blood type, their own fingerprints, and their own eye color, are in fact, a person, and are due the full rights and protections under the Constitution.
If we don't fix this soon, we will have the likes of Obama deciding that retarded and cripple people are useless eaters and need to be eliminated for the "good" of the "real" people.
Exactly!
It’s like walking up and murdering a person paralyzed in a wheel chair and repeatedly doing it and no one prosecutes you. Who defends those who can not defend themselves? Our culture is so polluted, that anyone who defends life is chalked off as a nutcase religious idiot but those who want to find and protect life in a molecule of water on Mars are considered scientific. What happens when the law isn’t changing? What’s the next step?
Which is my theory of why the left had such an irrational hatred of George W. Bush. They didn't know why but they just couldn't help themselves.
Like it or not, what Dr Tiller did for a living, was not against the law. Yes “The Law is an Ass”, as Shakespeare put it, but it’s what we have to work with. We must work to get the law changed. But what this numbnut did, was to make it even more difficult to change the law.
I take President Bush’s stance on this: change behavior by changing people’s hears and minds. If people are responsible with their sexual decisions and know there are other options besides abortion, the want for abortions will decrease.
Didn’t the doctor whose hand was grabbed by a baby during an in utero procedure change his mind? Pretty powerful, just as the woman known as Roe is now staunchly pro-life.
If a person killed 60,000, babies, children or adults, successfully avoiding law enforcement, and was then killed by another citizen, that citizen would be hailed a hero by a majority and almost no one would call him/her violent. If he had to stand trial he would likely be found not guilty or if found guilty would receive a slap on the wrist.
Morally there is no difference between the above situation and a person who kills 60,000 people in the womb. The difference is legal. Tiller's killer will likely get the death sentence, and be excoriated by most in the country.
The ONLY reason I oppose what Tiller the Killer's killer did (it is an act defending the lives of others), and the reason I become so angry with people like him, is because the liberal media and pro-abortionists, will successfully taint and demonize the entire pro-life movement with it, severely limiting our ability to end legalized abortion in this country and elsewhere.
In today's political climate, our best and most effective tactics are loving and positive tactics. If more abortionists are killed in this manner, it will mean death to the pro-life movement for the forseeable future.
You’re right. The press is handling this in a very low-key way, don’t you think? I mean, given the pro-abortion thrust of the media, they’ve been down right...responsible in reporting this. I watched the Today Show’s first half hour this morning, and Matt Lauer delivered the news about Tiller in a brief, dry couple of lines. It may be that the left does not want too much attention to what exactly George Tiller did — i.e, brutally murder viable babies — to advance the cause of “reproductive rightsâ€. In any case, I think you are correct that the momentum is on the pro-life side and that Tiller murder won’t change that.
That may be. But, the original argument was whether the guy should be taking the law into his own hands. My concern was that in certain circumstances we all would. Yes, it is tragic, but was the doctor a murderer? If the man thought he was saving children, is his excuse less viable than the doctor’s claim he was saving women? Herein lies the dilemma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.