Posted on 06/07/2009 11:29:06 AM PDT by September
After reading numerous ‘Statements on the Death of George Tiller’ from high profile pro-life leaders which said ‘we must strongly condemn such senseless acts of violence’, ‘killing is never the answer’, and ‘anyone who is truly pro-life will be saddened by Dr. Tiller’s death’ I had to ask myself one question.
If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence? That would be unthinkable. He would be extolled as brave American hero who saved babies from a deranged mass murderer.
However after the shooting of Dr. Tiller I’ve learned most people, even those who are pro-life, do not speak well of individuals who stop abortion doctors with deadly force, even though these doctors are serial child killers.
Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?
The best I understand it is the children abortionists kill are the "undesirables" in our society, just like the Jews were in Hitler’s Germany. Human beings who are unwanted, dehumanized, and stripped of civil rights. Second, people do not speak well of someone who uses deadly force to stop an abortionist because it is legal for a doctor to kill these children, just like it was legal to kill Jews.
Although it was legal to kill Jews in Hitler's Germany it was not right, and the Nazis were murderers even though their laws vindicated them. Importantly, the doctors in the death camps were murderers not merely because a Tribunal said so, those doctors were murders because they committed widespread inhumane atrocities, barbaric crimes against humanity, and systematic state-sponsored extermination of millions of people.
Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. In the name of civility and in an effort to save children from mass murder at the hands of an abortion doctor I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.
Let us pray abortion will also be criminalized as the Holocaust is.
And why, exactly, would you give the “benefit of the doubt” to the women who actually sign on the dotted line to make each abortion death happen even as you presumptively impugn the fathers of the babies?
700 people at his funeral...
Most of them had never met him...
He was “ushering” at his church...
How sweet...
But how many of the 700 attended a funeral for the thousands of innocent babies that he murdered ???
And how many of the 700 would even condemn the life that he led “outside of the church” ???
There’s something horribly guoulish about the reporting on this death and burial/funeral...
Giving one half of the human race (women) the legal authority to kill the children of the other half of the human race (men) without the women who do so incurring any legal penalty (and thus not being stopped by any legal deterrent) is the death of all that matters.
Civilization cannot withstand such murderous tribalism: the cultural implosion of the last few decades bears witness to that fact.
Secondarily, women are not stopped from getting abortions by penalties levied only on the abortionists because why would the care about the abortionist? They will simply figure that the abortionist took a legal risk for money, so whatever. That is why imposing legal penalties only on abortionists fails completely as a deterrent to the women who seek abortions in the first place.
And as far as differing with ineffective Republican front groups that exist to snow real Right to Life advocates into voting for anyone with a GOP label: absolutely I do in fact differ with them. They have tanked for decades even while collecting cash. Time for a change, and that change includes personal responsibility, moral culpability, and legal liability for any woman who seeks to have a prenatal baby killed by abortion.
>> That, my FRiend is a non sequitur!
The issue is the effective value of relying on arbitrary unlawful killing of abortionists to solve the abortion issue. The is the simple perspective that’s being debated. My comment is relevant.
Putting the abortionists medical license at risk is quite a big deterrent.
So to is the risk of actual criminal penalty.
You are looking for punishment.
I am looking for a politically acceptable, politically POSSIBLE way to stem the tide, to slow the abortion trade substantially.
I have spent enough time at the abortion gates to see girls drugged, chemically, and then DRAGGED into Tillers abortion mill.
I know full well that abusive relationships are out there.
I want to stop the abortion trade.
I am not that interested in punishment.
I am interested in life and preserving life.
Those two goals do not go hand in hand, in all cases.
They can actually conflict with one another.
The public is FAR more supportive of laws that restrict abortion, when it is the DOCTOR who gets punished.
Reread the post....
For that matter, read post 126.
So you want the issue to revolve around wrestling with your non-sequitur as if it were a valid reasoning tool. I’m afraid that is so irrational that I will go no further in this thread to satisfy your twisted reasoning.
I don’t dismiss, offhand, mitigating circumstances. Remember though we are talking about the life of an innocent child, who can not speak on it’s own behalf, nor act on it’s own behalf. It is the very definition of innocence, and that is true regardless of who the parents are, or what they may have done. Any act that takes that life wherein the agents of the former are not of at least equal innocence, then those agents are guilty of murder, so as far as I’m concerned, you better damn well have good argument to make...
I agree.
I’m not asking for your satisfaction, but thanks for coloring my comments.
FRiend, I exposed your faulty reasoning. If that’s color to you, so be it. Have a nice evening.
I was being sarcastic which should be self-evident.
You're analogy is nonsense. Abortion is a business of supply and demand. The abortionist performs a service for a clientele that demands it. Your jailhouse murderer provides no such service nor does he act in the interest of a client. The notion that you can dismiss, as irrelevant, the claim that the market will still fulfill the demands of the public based upon your argument here is truly bizarre.
I haven't said one word about punishment, nor have I alluded to it, either legally or spiritually. I have only expounded on responsibility, and since I'm not one to mix words, if my assigning culpability somehow scares you, or rocks your little boat...then too bad.
Let me 'splain' it for you one more time:
A non-sequitur is when the poster speciously tries to equate the death of an individual performing abortions as an impediment to behavior done by someone else performing abortions. It is about as rational as claiming the execution of a murderer will be an impediment to someone somewhere else performing murders.
The only definite result that can be verified with Tiller's murder is that Tiller will never perform another abortion. To try and fabricate a correlation to other abortionists positively or negatively is a non-sequitur.
However, you ARE on the wrong track here.
The OBJECTIVE, the GOAL is to stop the slaughter.
We do NOT have overwhelming public support.
Besides, public support, alone, is not enough when we are up against tyrannical courts.
We must be smart in the pursuit of our goals.
Saving babies is the goal, anything that gets in the way of that goal should be avoided.
The public is largely in FAVOR of restrictions, and punishments, placed on DOCTORS.
The public is largely against putting abortive women in jail.
I would rather win the abortion battle than win petty arguments.
>> It is non-related to ask if such a death prevents other killings done by other people not involved in the death of the object individual of the ‘sequitur’.
The children I’m referring to would have been those on Tiller’s schedule following his death. The abortions may still take place, however, at a different facility.
Some speculate that the children scheduled for death have luckily evaded Tiller’s craft. Well, they won’t die in his hands, but they may die by the hand of another.
My comment is relevant: “How many unborn children have been saved because of this event? Perhaps none.”
If you still think it’s twisted logic, please FRiend, expand your reasoning as to why.
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.