Eric Rudolph Captured

CNN | May 31,2003 | Vinnie

[Vinnie]

CNN is reporting that Eric Rudolph has been captured in Murphy, North Carolina

[Michael2001]

Well there's 899 posts on this thread, I didn't read them all so I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but here's my theory:

Someone who bombs abortion clinics and a gay nightclub has a certain agenda; I don't see why that same person would bomb the olympics. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I have a feeling they knew that if they didn't pin it on somebody it would cause panic, so they just blamed it on this guy who was already wanted. Hopefully we'll find out more now that he is captured.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Thank you. I tend to agree with you that this issue is best dealt with a gentle hand, not an axe - despite my axe-wielding ways that are well known here on FR. :-)

When it comes to the abortion argument, so much of it is wrapped around people's innermost feelings about their personal rights and responsibilities, and I, though strongly pro-life, can feel intense sympathy for the women who get caught in the net of an unplanned pregancy and see themselves as trapped in a situation beyond their control.

Trust me, guys, without compassion we will never get anywhere.

[jwalsh07]

Simple, if he killed that person in Atlanta, then turn around is fair play.

[najida]

Trust me, guys, without compassion we will never get anywhere.
____

That is the key (to me). These threads are like open rooms without doors or windows. People wander in unknown to the group and take away what they read. You can be winning converts or making life-long enemies, and never know it.

[tpaine]

I think there should be a "cut-off" time by which a woman has to choose whether to abort or carry the child to term. However, I don't know when that time should be. I'd have to study the gestation period and learn more about the development of a fetus.
-894-


From what I've read, -- the USSC established that 'cut off' point as being "viability"..
-- Prior to that time [defined as roughly the end of the second trimester] a state cannot prosecute abortion as murder.
After the first trimester, - abortion can be severely 'reguated' by the state, but not absolutely prohibited as a crime. - After viability, proscute as murder, and let a jury decide..
But in no case is abortion to be criminalized in the first trimester.

This is the constitutional way the matter rests as of now, to my knowledge. NO one on any side of the issue has come up with a better method of resolving the dilemma.

Sure a lot of shouting going on though..
As has been remarked here, much of the more fanatical only hurts the agenda of those most zealous..

[mac_truck]

You began this post by stating,

I am, in fact, for forcing a woman to continue life support to viability for the other alive individual for whom she is responisble in her womb..

You go on to outline where science is going in terms of producing life outside the womb. Then you ask

To whom will the individual belong that lives through the artificial gestational process?

I would suggest that by removing the individual's choice in terminating a pregnancy, then you [the state] are assuming responsibility for the result, and pushing society toward embracing morally ambivelant alternatives such as artifical gestation. As long as individuals make the decisions with regard to termination, I believe artificial gestation for humans will remain just an exotic option.

Your efforts would be better spent (imo) emphasizing the negative moral consequences of abortion and emphasizing life enhancing options like adoption, than pursuing a legal strategy that would force women to carry their unborn children to term.

[LanPB01]

I disagree with your conclusion in the article because, even though it takes both a male and a female for procreation, it STILL is the woman's body that houses the fetus. If men were the ones carrying the fetus, I'd say the same thing for them.

I see the arguments of the pro-life side, and I see the arguments of the pro-choice. As I have said, I'm not saying abortion is a great thing; I see that it's the destruction of a potential life. However, I will not agree to any argument which makes a living, functioning person a slave to a life not yet in being.

While there are many pro-lifers that appear to be against abortion on moral and ethical grounds because they are against what they perceive as the murder of children, there is also another contingent. The ones I label the "pro-enslavement" camp. I think a lot of these people just get off on the idea of having the kind of control of someone where they can force them to carry a child against their will, and some of them look at forcing a woman in this fashion to be her just deserts.

[jwalsh07]

Well, you're wrong Paine. Roe v Wade opened the door for and Doe v Bolton ripped it off it's hinges so that now you can kill'em on the way out.

In other words 5 judges in black robes decided that killing babies was an unalienable right not to be legislated against by the states.

And the real irony here is that there are a good many libertarians and conservatives who have no problem with it.

[jwalsh07]

I see that it's the destruction of a potential life

"It's" not a potential life, it is human life. That is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, not just "pro lifers". So don't couch words.

Argue that it is ok to kill human life.

[jwalsh07]

Trust me, guys, without compassion we will never get anywhere.

Compassion is fine but eduacation is better. A woman who sees a 4d picture of the baby in her womb is much less likely to allow it's dismemberment.

[Cathryn Crawford]

"...to a life not yet in being."

Very quickly (as I'm heading out) let me say - I don't see how you justify this statement. Could you explain it to me please? I'll get more in-depth tonight, when I have more time. Thanks.

[jwalsh07]

What do you think?

[LanPB01]

I agree with the USSC's interpretation of "viability", but I'd still like to learn more about the actual gestation process.

[Quick1]

I was watching NBC News the other night, and they were talking about the cult he had been in, and how the cult was extremely racist, and violently opposed to homosexuality and abortion. I think the theory about bombing the Olympics was that it was a gathering of many nations and nationalities, and therefore he wanted to make a statement or some such thing.

[LanPB01]

I would label any "life not yet in being" as a life that has not yet reached the point where it could survive outside the womb. I consider a life "viable" and "in being" when it can survive outside of another.

[jwalsh07]

I would label any "life not yet in being" as a life that has not yet reached the point where it could survive outside the womb. I consider a life "viable" and "in being" when it can survive outside of another.

Say up to 6 or 7 years old then?

[LanPB01]

Thanks for the notice. I am a lot more apt to discuss my thoughts on this topic with people that can convey their arguments in a rational way. Some people, however, are not worth my time to even acknowledge.

[goodseedhomeschool]

Say what you like. As for a "tin foiled hat", you perhaps should loosen up your bias a little Mr./Mrs. Judgemental.

[goodseedhomeschool]

How do you even know this man has committed any crime any more than you have? I am not trying to sound like his defense attorny, but it seems to me when all this started a few years back, they were simply searching for a "scapegoat" and Roudolf was it. Maybe I am wrong, but I still think he should have a trial before we hang-um high. Heck, I wonder what anyone would do if they knew they were this scapegoat and no matter what you said, you were "guilty" whether you were or not.

[tpaine]

From what I've read, -- the USSC established that 'cut off' point as being "viability"..

-- Prior to that time [defined as roughly the end of the second trimester] a state cannot prosecute abortion as murder.
After the first trimester, - abortion can be severely 'reguated' by the state, but not absolutely prohibited as a crime. - After viability, proscute as murder, and let a jury decide..
But in no case is abortion to be criminalized in the first trimester.

This is the constitutional way the matter rests as of now, to my knowledge. NO one on any side of the issue has come up with a better method of resolving the dilemma. Sure a lot of shouting going on though..
As has been remarked here, much of the more fanatical only hurts the agenda of those most zealous.. -905-

Well, you're wrong Paine. Roe v Wade opened the door for and Doe v Bolton ripped it off it's hinges so that now you can kill'em on the way out.

That is simply untrue. Each state has the power to regulate second trimester abortion or to try those of the 3rd as murder. -- They lack the political will to do so.

In other words 5 judges in black robes decided that killing babies was an unalienable right not to be legislated against by the states.

Shout that as loud as you like.. It does not change the constitutional facts of the matter.

And the real irony here is that there are a good many libertarians and conservatives who have no problem with it.

Many do have problems with it, but want them resolved within the rule of law, in a free republic.

The irony is in the shouts for state prohibitions on individual rights. - These are not the tactics of constitutional conservatives.