"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[I Ratant]

...
Note: I am in no way stating that a majority of Christians belive his murder was justified. But there is a very vocal minority who in fact are happy that he was killed.

.
That's true of any issue.
We here are a "vocal minority".
The "majority" pays no attention to what transpires here, and would continue to do so if they were to become aware of it.
Most people are "live and let live", preferring a non-interfering life style, as long as there's no up-close and personal involvement.
The fringe groups like this one (JREF) attract activists and would-be activists and loonies, who may get officially "active" from what they pick up here.
Roeder was immersed in right-wing hate, a small but vocal minority of conservative thought. It's not surprising he went "active" when provoked.

 

[MattusMaximus]

.
That's true of any issue.
We here are a "vocal minority".
The "majority" pays no attention to what transpires here, and would continue to do so if they were to become aware of it.
Most people are "live and let live", preferring a non-interfering life style, as long as there's no up-close and personal involvement.
The fringe groups like this one (JREF) attract activists and would-be activists and loonies, who may get officially "active" from what they pick up here.
Roeder was immersed in right-wing hate, a small but vocal minority of conservative thought. It's not surprising he went "active" when provoked.

The problem with this argument on this particular issue is that all of the violence and hate-mongering is one-sided. I have yet to see anyone, despite my asking for it numerous times, provide me any evidence of the "pro-choice" side ever encouraging or supporting violence like this against their "pro-life" opponents.

Got any? I didn't think so.

Take that particularly disturbing fact into account, and then get back to me.

 

[maddog]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ? That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

 

[MattusMaximus]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ? That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

Umm, no. How can that be attributed to the "pro-choice" movement as opposed to some random jerk? How do you know some "pro-lifer" doesn't have that same bumper sticker as a mean-spirited insult, for example? I can imagine such an insult would be much worse coming from someone who believes abortion is a crime.

Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

You misunderstand my point. I am not talking about whether or not one considers abortion itself an act of violence.

My point is that not one "pro-choicer" has ever committed an act of violence in the name of the "pro-choice" movement against a "pro-life" institution or individual. My question is very specific: when was the last time a "pro-choicer" shot a "pro-lifer" for advocating that abortion be illegal? When was the last time a "pro-choicer" bombed a "pro-life" institution for its positions and actions on this issue?

Get back to me when you have the answer, and don't deviate from the specific question I'm asking. It'll take awhile...

 

[Cleon]

Matt, haven't you seen any of the bumper-sticker / slogans saying things like "Your mother should have had an abortion" ?

I can't speak for Matt, but I certainly haven't. And I've been involved in abortion rights activism since 1994 or so.

That's not quite in the same level of "encouraging or supporting violence" as this other, but it is a similar idea.

...No, not really. It's hateful, it's rude, it's childish, but it's not really similar to any sort of support or encouragement of violence.

Also, just about any pro-life person would tell you that every abortion is an ACT of violence, not just "encouraging or supporting violence".

...And therefore it's justifiable to fight against it with violence, right?

(I realize that's not really fair, but that is where the terrorists' "logic" comes from.)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Btw, here is an excellent article from former anti-abortion activist and religious right-winger Frank Schaeffer...

How I (and Other "Pro-Life" Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder

My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America.

In the late 1970s my evangelical pro-life leader father Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop (who soon become Surgeon General in the Reagan administration) went on the road with me taking the documentary antiabortion film series I produced and directed ( Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) to the evangelical public. The series and companion book eventually brought millions of heretofore non-political evangelical Americans into the antiabortion crusade. We personally also got people like Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan and countless Republican leaders involved in the "issue." ...

It's a really good read. He also has some interesting criticisms of the Roe v. Wade ruling, which I share, though he expresses his support for keeping abortion legal.

Food for thought. Pass it along.

 

[garcia<3]

I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

The fetus is part of the mother, therefore her decision. You would also need to prove that fetuses have the mental capacity to understand that they are alive and separate from the mother.

 

[I Ratant]

Umm, no. How can that be attributed to the "pro-choice" movement as opposed to some random jerk? How do you know some "pro-lifer" doesn't have that same bumper sticker as a mean-spirited insult, for example? I can imagine such an insult would be much worse coming from someone who believes abortion is a crime.



You misunderstand my point. I am not talking about whether or not one considers abortion itself an act of violence.

My point is that not one "pro-choicer" has ever committed an act of violence in the name of the "pro-choice" movement against a "pro-life" institution or individual. My question is very specific: when was the last time a "pro-choicer" shot a "pro-lifer" for advocating that abortion be illegal? When was the last time a "pro-choicer" bombed a "pro-life" institution for its positions and actions on this issue?

Get back to me when you have the answer, and don't deviate from the specific question I'm asking. It'll take awhile...

.
The mind sets of those pro-choice folks is different than the pro-lifers.
Possibly a lot more tolerant of the things life throws at us, not looking for "the" hard-coded answer, either in some book or from some rabble rouser.
Pro-choicers may have been exposed to the hard-line, and being able to think a bit more clearly, reject it, both the abortion problem and what to do about abortionists.
The situation has a whole of gray on one side, and total black on the other.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

The fetus is part of the mother, therefore her decision. You would also need to prove that fetuses have the mental capacity to understand that they are alive and separate from the mother.

What constitutes being a "part of the mother"?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions? - it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

 

[garcia<3]

What constitutes being a "part of the mother"?

being inside her body, feeding off of her

 

[Cleon]

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions?

Seems like an irrelevant distinction to me--what difference does it make?

- it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

There's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. In a pro-life world, a woman getting an abortion is committing a crime. In a pro-choice world, a woman choosing to not have an abortion is exercising her choice.

If you'll notice, that's really where the entire difference of opinion lies.

 

[I Ratant]

What could a pro-choicer say to a pro-lifer?
"You want that kid to live, do ya?
Well, so do I, so I have to kill you!"...
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Seems like an irrelevant distinction to me--what difference does it make?

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things. I bet some of them are for seat-belt laws, and maybe even restricting what people can do on the property they own. They just think you shouldn't be restricted on having a doctor kill their unborn child.

There's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. In a pro-life world, a woman getting an abortion is committing a crime. In a pro-choice world, a woman choosing to not have an abortion is exercising her choice.

Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.

 

[garcia<3]

Pro-choicers are about giving people choices in all areas of life or for just abortions? - it seems like a huge overgeneralization you're making about pro-choicers, pro-lifers and restricting choices.

Well I'm pro choice and I believe in live and let live. So I would say that it applies to all areas of life.

 

[Cleon]

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things. I bet some of them are for seat-belt laws, and maybe even restricting what people can do on the property they own.

If you want to start a thread on why everyone should be a Libertarian, please feel free to do so. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.

Otherwise, I still fail to see the relevance.

They just think you shouldn't be restricted on having a doctor kill their unborn child.

Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.

As I said...It's a generalization, but it's essentially correct. Pro-lifers want to restrict the choice involved, and pro-choicers do not.

 

[linusrichard]

"Pro choice" and "pro life" are positions on the issue of abortion - specifically, on the legality of abortion. It doesn't make a "pro choicer" a hypocrite if he supports mandatory seat belt laws, just as it doesn't (necessarily) make a "pro lifer" a hypocrite if she supports the death penalty.

ACS, I suspect you already know this, so I'm wondering what is the point of these last few posts?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you want to start a thread on why everyone should be a Libertarian, please feel free to do so. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.

Otherwise, I still fail to see the relevance.

garcia>3 thaiboxerken seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?

 

[garcia<3]

garcia<3 seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?

I only speak for myself, and I am not a male.