NARAL releases statement on Michigan shooting

The Washington Times-Water Cooler ^ | 9/11/09 | Kerry Picket

[paltz]

UPDATE- NARAL Responds to Michigan shooting: “Today’s shootings in Michigan are tragic and our thoughts are with the families so deeply affected by this senseless violence. Although law-enforcement officials still have not commented on the shooter’s motivation, we understand that one of those murdered today was an anti-choice activist.

[cripplecreek]

Nice. Sorry with an insult.

[Da Coyote]

I love the wording....”...anti-choice activist...”

I have given up. The war is indeed coming. Guess it’s best sooner rather than later - in order to not give the libs a chance to disarm us.

[andy58-in-nh]

The use of the term "anti-choice activist" when they might have said even "anti-abortion activist" tells you everything you need to know: they are not truly sorry. Those who value human life, would be.

[Kenton]

Although law-enforcement officials still have not commented on the shooter’s motivation,

Yeah, that's a tough one to figure out... how about that he was a leftwing "progressive" domestic terrorist?

[Califreak]

The use of anti-choice almost makes it sound like they are implying he deserved to die.

Is the editor MIA?

[This_far]

Guns have to be registered, but not forceps.

[Elvina]

In fact, according to WOOD-TV News 8 out of Grand Rapids, the shooter told police that he killed the pro-life activist because he didn’t like his method of protest. So the motives are known, NARAL.

[GloriaJane]

"Although law-enforcement officials still have not commented on the shooter’s motivation, we understand that one of those murdered today was an anti-choice PRO-LIFE activist. NARAL Pro-Choice PRO-DEATH America emphatically condemns violence as a political weapon to silence opposition."

There! Fixed it!

[Faith]

Today I heard Neal Boortz say the correct term to use is “anti-choice” rather than pro-life. (We can’t label conservative opponents with names that sound too logical or honorable-—far too risky, you know.) He claims he is pro-life but is for “choice.” I nearly punched a hole in my windshield. The “choice” was already made when the female and male “chose” to have sexual relations. Now let’s be adults and deal with the “choice” we made.

[21twelve]

Well - I’m pro-choice too, so keep your hands off my body! (Wait, we’re not talking about government healthcare are we? Nevermind).

[Robert A Cook PE]

For all that he opposes in the democrat party, Boortz is a screaming pro-abortionist supporter, and bitterly condemns all who oppose abortion and religious fundamentalists in particular, but - fortunately - he refuses to discuss abortion on the radio.

[andy58-in-nh]

It’s a child - not a “choice”. The use of the word “choice” implies a personal decision affecting only the person who owns the decision. If only a single life were involved, there would be no debate. The inconvenient reality is that the life of another hangs in the balance, and the pretense that when a child’s life begins or does not is solely a matter of discretion denies that reality.

[Faith]

That’s why I normally don’t listen to Boortz. He must be very insecure about his belief since he will not allow any debate on his show regarding abortion. He refuses to entertain the discussion. But when he wants to make a statement about it, he lays it on the table as if it were the ultimate authority and truth. Then he goes back to the old rules again. Sadly, he is completely wrong about the whole issue.

[tiki]

Well, I call them pro-murderers.

“Guess it’s best sooner rather than later “

I just said this today.