Totenkopf Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tiller_shooting So, what affect, if any, will this have on the abortion issue? Thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 it's probably not gonna change anything. increased security for the abortion doctors. now, if the anti-abortion people would start gunning down those that are going to the doctors to get abortions before they even enter the clinic, there might be a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 now, if the anti-abortion people would start gunning down those that are going to the doctors to get abortions before they even enter the clinic, there might be a change. I am horrified at such a thought, as well as horrified that someone took the life of this doctor, even if I didn't agree with his views on late-term abortion. It's such a complete and utter disrespect for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I am horrified at such a thought, as well as horrified that someone took the life of this doctor, even if I didn't agree with his views on late-term abortion. It's such a complete and utter disrespect for life. It isn't alive until it breaths on its own. Maybe we ought to start gunning down the anti-abortion people? It sure would be nice if I could drive past the Planned Parenthood without seeing them march around with their stupid cross, and waving their nasty little signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 To make it clear, I wouldn't want anyone to do such a thing as gunning anyone down. I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, I don't care either way. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 It isn't alive until it breaths on its own. If breathing "on one's own" is the standard, then perhaps people should be taken off ventillators b/c they are essentially dead/unliving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 To make it clear, I wouldn't want anyone to do such a thing as gunning anyone down.Hmmm... now, if the anti-abortion people would start gunning down those that are going to the doctors to get abortions before they even enter the clinic, there might be a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 ^Typical. He's merely pointing out that it would likely take more than killing an abortion doctor to cause any real change and you go running off suggesting "zomg!! he wants to see people get shot in the street." To make that jump is a leap FROM logic, not a leap of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 If breathing "on one's own" is the standard, then perhaps people should be taken off ventillators b/c they are essentially dead/unliving? A fetus has never breathed on its own. People on ventilators were at one point able to breath on their own. Unless you're referring to vegetables, I think they ought to be taken off life support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 Frankly, using your apparently vague precondition....breath on one's own....anyone on life support that can't draw a breath unassisted is not alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I believe he just amended that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But they're killing babies Jarod, BABIES. Which for some reason or another automatically are worth more than the lives of walking, talking, thinking people. Really, I don't quite get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But they're killing babies Jarod, Not babies - pre-babies. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Not babies - pre-babies. _EW_ And in some cases, not even pre-babies. This "heinous crime" consists of less than 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. and most states have laws requiring that there be some certifiable health risk before it can be carried out. Clearly we are the pinnacle of civilization that reproductive health professionals have to fear for their lives when going to work in the morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 It isn't alive until it breaths on its own. That's a load of crap. I've had 2 babies of my own--they were very much alive before they were born. Maybe we ought to start gunning down the anti-abortion people? It sure would be nice if I could drive past the Planned Parenthood without seeing them march around with their stupid cross, and waving their nasty little signs.That would be just as disrespectful of not only their lives, but their right to free speech and religion. I abhor the senseless waste that the murder of this doctor was, and nowhere did I even remotely imply that anyone should ever be gunned down. If I never saw another gunshot wound, it would be too soon. Don't like the protestors? Do a counter-protest or some other positive expression of your free speech rights. It's totally easy to gripe here about how much you hate the protesting, but consider putting your money where your mouth is and volunteer to help at the clinic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 ^Typical. He's merely pointing out that it would likely take more than killing an abortion doctor to cause any real change and you go running off suggesting "zomg!! he wants to see people get shot in the street." To make that jump is a leap FROM logic, not a leap of logic. thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 That's a load of crap. I've had 2 babies of my own--they were very much alive before they were born. Mothers shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on this sort of things. All their hormones make them really stupid. Don't like the protestors? Do a counter-protest or some other positive expression of your free speech rights. It's totally easy to gripe here about how much you hate the protesting, but consider putting your money where your mouth is and volunteer to help at the clinic. I don't have time for that while either working or going to school full time, and doing other service projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 It isn't alive until it breaths on its own. Alive: marked by much life, animation, or activity. Life: animate activity and movement. The baby is quite active in the mother's womb (kicking, eating, etc.) You're definition of life doesn't line up with the definitions from the dictionary. Mothers shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on this sort of things. All their hormones make them really stupid. So you're saying that their decision to have an abortion in the first place was stupid because of their hormones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Alive: marked by much life, animation, or activity. Life: animate activity and movement. The baby is quite active in the mother's womb (kicking, eating, etc.) You're definition of life doesn't line up with the definitions from the dictionary. How does that work for you when we apply it to someone in a persistent vegetative state? Coma? Paralysis? I'm willing to bet that your definition of life isn't as tidy as you would like for it to be either. I think the problem that we're going to have here is that one or more interested parties seem to be hung up on "alive" when I think the root of what we're really trying to get to is "personhood" (i.e. a separate entity with rights, etc). Furthermore the problem that we run into when we talk about late-term abortions is whether the "rights" of an unborn fetus trump the rights of a living, breathing human adult (per Samnmax221's earlier post). As related to this thread, someone committed an actual murder to avenge perceived "murders" and called it "christian". Perhaps an apologist will come along at some point to explain how first degree murder is "christ-like". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Alive: marked by much life, animation, or activity. Life: animate activity and movement. The baby is quite active in the mother's womb (kicking, eating, etc.) You're definition of life doesn't line up with the definitions from the dictionary. It doesn't know its being aborted, it isn't sentient, it's not murder. So you're saying that their decision to have an abortion in the first place was stupid because of their hormones? No, I was mocking mothers, Jae in particular, for their constant MY BABY this, MY BABY that, they sound like they're on ****ing Maury. No one gives a **** about yourBABY but you, stop talking about. Also, when Sarah Dumbass Palin cited her experiance as a mother during the leadup to the election I wanted to punch her in the face, its not classy, no one cares, and its not applicable to anything else, stop citing it. Abortion is a women's health issue, they aren't just heartlessly killing babies like you morons seem to believe. Late term abortions are almost exclusively undertaken to prevent pregnancy complications, do you know why you don't hear about women dying during child birth very often anymore? Because the pregnancy can be ended, forcing women to go the course due to your own simple minded beliefs pretty much condemns one, or both of them to death in those cases. Also this: (This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 If Christians really want to put an end to abortion once and for all, then they need to stop lobbying the government to criminalize it, and instead, campaign to eliminate the need for an abortion. Abortion is a quick and easy resolution to one's problem, therefore, the problem must be prevented in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 If Christians really want to put an end to abortion once and for all, then they need to stop lobbying the government to criminalize it, and instead, campaign to eliminate the need for an abortion. Abortion is a quick and easy resolution to one's problem, therefore, the problem must be prevented in the first place.That would mean having to admit error and backtrack on 20+ years of (failed) abstinence-only programs. We'd have to introduce comprehensive sex ed like what most other industrialized nations have which of course would not sit well with prudish American/christian values at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Abortion is a quick and easy resolution to one's problem, therefore, the problem must be prevented in the first place. Bingo. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Let's prevent unwanted pregnancies and educate kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 We'd have to introduce comprehensive sex ed like what most other industrialized nations have which of course would not sit well with prudish American/christian values at all. Even that won't eliminate everything. We had comprehensive sex-ed and still had dumb pregnant girls up the wazoo. Nothing compared to the kind of **** that goes on in the Bible-belt, but still a ridiculous amount. As long as kids are stupid teen pregnancies will keep happening. EDIT: Should probably mention that pregnancy complications (Ectopic pregnancy, Placental abruptio, etc) will continue the need for abortions, no matter what for many years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Bingo. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Let's prevent unwanted pregnancies and educate kids.Of course, however even if by some unbelievable chance we eliminated 100% of all unintended pregnancies, that still wouldn't address the fact that women may need access to safe, legal late-term abortions for health reasons. What you and PX have expressed here is absolutely valid, however it is only one part of the picture. Even that won't eliminate everything. We had comprehensive sex-ed and still had dumb pregnant girls up the wazoo. Nothing compared to the kind of **** that goes on in the Bible-belt, but still a ridiculous amount. As long as kids are stupid teen pregnancies will keep happening.No doubt, but I think the point stands that true comprehensive sex ed is much more effective than abstinence only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.