Eric Rudolph Captured

CNN | May 31,2003 | Vinnie

[Vinnie]

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

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I am a lot more apt to discuss my thoughts on this topic with people that can convey their arguments in a rational way.

I can see that you are in your exchange with Cathryn. There is no reason for people to treat you as though you're running around with a coat hanger, laughing maniacally and trying to find a happy pregnant woman to attack.

Few people who might be potentially persuaded are going to want to associate themselves with a cause that uses off-putting rhetoric and words like "courageous" to describe someone like Eric Rudolph. I wish people would consider that before they start pushing and shoving.

[jwalsh07]

You're nutty. 26 States have passed laws prohibiting partial birth abortion, SCOTUS struck them down. Where you been?

[goodseedhomeschool]

YOu know something funny? I love in a small town here is Georgia. When Richard Jewel became our local police officer AFTER HE HAD BEEN ACCUSED OF A BOMBING, he had a hard time of it. He was a very nice man who was a victim of a witchhunt. Heads turned around here for a while when he first took the job as a police officer, but once we got to know him, it is just amazing that he had to go through all that he went through.

[jwalsh07]

I think he was referring to me.:-}

[goodseedhomeschool]

apologizing for bad spelling :)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think he was referring to me.:-}

Yeah, I think he was charmed by the post you wrote to paine that started with "You're nutty." LOL ; )

[goodseedhomeschool]

The one crime we know this guy is guilty of is eluding police. This holds a stiff penalty for sure. As for if he is the perp in the bombings, that remains to be seen.

[tpaine]

You're nutty. 26 States have passed laws prohibiting partial birth abortion, SCOTUS struck them down. Where you been? -O7-

Solidly on the constitutional side of the states at issue. They need to keep fighting the issue.
A key to doing so would be to write reasonable regulations on late term abortion, rather than attempting to flat out prohibit it.

Shouts of 'you're nutty' make my point about zealotry. - Thanks

[jwalsh07]

Yup, my wife tells me I can be a real people person. :-}

[jwalsh07]

Shouts of 'you're nutty' make my point about zealotry. - Thanks

No problem, at least you admitted that your thesis was wrong.

[tpaine]

Shouts of 'you're nutty' make my point about zealotry. - Thanks

No problem, at least you admitted that your thesis was wrong.

Typical dreamer. -- You have no ability to refute my point about states fighting the issue, so you play a silly 'pretend' game.. How pitiful.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Yup, my wife tells me I can be a real people person. :-}

Kinda like this? LOL (My advance apologies for the "gd" word in this clip.)

[marajade]

Huh?

[goodseedhomeschool]

You know, with all the evidence that the muslime al-queda community has shown in blowing things up, etc., and due to the fact that a huge mosque is in Atlanta, they should be the first suspects in the olympic bombing.
I think if truth were known, they are the guilty ones. As for the abortion clinic and gay nightclub events, who knows. Common sense dictates that muslimes be the first suspects in my opinion. Of course, at the time, it was not PC to accuse those sweet innocent killers so I think it just sounded better to accuse a "right wing nut case" as it was determined.
I really hope the truth comes out about these bombings.

[Delphinium]

I would hope that my children would not be at an abortion clinic, but if they were it would be very sad for me, and for them.

I am not in anyway advocating bombing an abortion clinic. All I am saying is I can understand the outrage, and passion that leads one to do it. If this guy really believed babies were being murdered in there, maybe he felt like he could save some. I am very passionate about this issue but believe it is better to work in a more non-violent way to change it.. What bothers me is that more so-called pro-life people don’t even vote.

I am very compassionate to women who have had abortions. I know many who regret deeply that they killed their baby. My first child was born without a father. Many people begged me to abort. It was a very difficult time for me, and I never even considered abortion but I understand the torment a unmarried woman goes through. My step daughter had an abortion very recently after the baby’s father, and grandparents pressured her into it. After she killed the baby, and the creep ditched her she had a nervous breakdown. She called and we got her to live with us immediately. I love her very much and would never condemn her.

As far as the other bombings he is accused of, I wonder? I really don’t trust much of what the FBI under Janet Reno did.

Hope this answers your question, I have a pretty busy day today so didn’t have a lot of time to think about it. I wish I would have chosen my words more carefully yesterday because making people angry doesn’t always help.

[mac_truck]

This might come as a surprise to you but the anti-abortion groups of today and the abolitionist groups of the 1800s share a lot of common ground. Both had philosophical disagreements about the best approach to take (legislative vs. moral persuasion) to influence their cause, and both had their extremists. Both groups were considered radicals in their time, and both share political lineage to the Republican party.

While you are correct to say that some in the north held slaves, it does not have relevance to the comparison I'm drawing.

I'm more interested in hearing how a champion of individual rights like yourself feels about having the federal government monitoring the health of your unborn child, or perhaps more ominously, making decisions about whether you should have any [or] more children?

[Hacksaw]

You are either for legalized abortion, or you're for enslaving women and forcing them through a gestation period against their will.

Except pregnancy is natural, and abortion is not. Nice try.

[jwalsh07]

Why don't we make the contrast a bit more stark?

Does the state have an interest in protecting the lives of the innocent from those who would end same?

[Mr. Silverback]

I'll say, "Bless their unborn souls, but I supported the right of women to choose. I erred on the side of people that were actually born and in existence, and if they felt they weren't ready to give birth, they knew better than I did. I chose not to punish women that made the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to carry an unwanted child to full term. These women were encouraged to consider having the child, then giving it up for adoption, but since it was their body, they had the final say." This line of thinking, according to the Rudloph apologists, is going to cause me to burn.

One does not have to be a Rudolph apologist to disagree with this statement. In fact, if Eric Rudolph is indeed guilty of the crimes he is charged with, I would gladly execute him myself. That said, you are making a huge logical fallacy in your endorsement of the pro-choice staus quo. The fact that a woman has sovereignty over her own body does not excuse the slaughter of her unborn child any more than my rights as a property owner excuse me locking the fire doors in my apartment building, or fumigating it while the tenants are home.

Abortion is murder except in those rare cases (eptopic pregnancy, etc.) where it constitutes self-defense. There are just as many legitimate excuses for abortion as there are excuses for me blowing away my next door neighbor.

[billbears]

I'm more interested in hearing how a champion of individual rights like yourself feels about having the federal government monitoring the health of your unborn child, or perhaps more ominously, making decisions about whether you should have any [or] more children?

And as a defender of individual rights, the child in the womb has just as many rights as the mother carrying him or her. The mother made her decision when she chose to lie down with the father of the unborn child. Are you suggesting that the national government (there hasn't been a federal government by definition for many decades) by 'monitoring' unborn children is condoning the right of the individual to kill another individual?

And considering your abolition group of the 1800s amassed less than 100,000-200,000 people out of a population of 20 million in the north (Abolition Party figures) before the war, I'd say there's no comparison. 99.5% of the people in the north could have cared less about slavery. Are you willing to say the same about the deprivation of a human life?

Secondly, your comparison of Southerners to Nazis was an insult. Nazis killed people indiscriminately, much as the doctors in abortion clinics. Different age of the victim, but a human victim nonetheless. So why don't we just compare abortionists to Nazis? Much closer comparison but not one I will make

As to your original question, it is a decision to be made by the legislatures of the separate and sovereign states since it is not covered under the Constitution. That nasty 10th Amendment. You do remember that Amendment don't you mac?