[xjcsa]

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

I think I hear heads exploding...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Coulter:"I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?"

Coulter raises a moral dilemma for liberals. If moral relativism applies to the issue of homicide in abortion, as liberals claim, on what basis can they draw the line on not imposing morality on others? How does the liberal reasoning and rhetoric hold up here? What is the liberal basis for imposing morality in other situations? They have a problem on their hands if the shooter doesn't buy into their idea of morality. So abortionists do not accept the idea that unborn children are buman beings deserving of a right to life. What about those who would extend that to other classes of people? Are they free to invoke the "personally opposed but..." clause? Where would it end? Old and sick people?