Pro life murder

phic · 01-06-2009 01:22PM

walshb wrote: »

Surely after all the previous crap and attempts on his life, he would have said "enough is enough, this crap aint worth my life."

He had to be aware that there were whack jobs out to do him harm.

Feck sake, 67 years of age and he's putting himself in so much danger.
A man at that age should have been retired and enjoying the rest of
his life

he had been shot before, so Im sure he realised the risks. maybe he thought the work he was doing was worth risking his life. Its better that the woman would get a legal abortion in a recognised clinic even at this late stage, rather than an backstreet/home abortion which would endanger her life greatly.

minidazzler · 01-06-2009 01:22PM

Jakkass wrote: »

People who are pro-life are anti-abortion in general. Some people may be opposed to abortion and be pro-death in other respects. I think it would greatly weaken your case however. How can you justify killing one person in one circumstance versus killing another in another circumstance?

Ok, Man goes out and kills 4 people, he deserves to die.

Man Perform's abortions, I don't like it, but I recognise the Foetes are for all intents and purposes Parasites who need their mothers womb to survive, he doesn't deserve death, just a good beating.

I should have had the Pro-life and Anti-Abortion around in my original Statement. It should have said "Anti-Abortion is not the same as Pro-Life."

Terry · 01-06-2009 01:29PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Crusades are the complete antithesis of what Jesus ever taught. Hence why I can gladly say that I oppose them completely. Any good history of them will tell you that there were a large array of other factors involved. Anyhow, may be best to discuss the topic at hand rather than the Crusades eh?

Ok. Just as long as you remember that Jesus had no stance on abortion. None at all. There is no possible way to spin it.

minidazzler wrote: »

Ok, Man goes out and kills 4 people, he deserves to die.

Man Perform's abortions, I don't like it, but I recognise the Foetes are for all intents and purposes Parasites who need their mothers womb to survive, he doesn't deserve death, just a good beating.

I should have had the Pro-life and Anti-Abortion around in my original Statement. It should have said "Anti-Abortion is not the same as Pro-Life."

So who kills the killer and does the killer of the killer then get killed by someone else?

giggsy664 · 01-06-2009 01:33PM

Min wrote: »

Two wrongs never made a right.

But 3 yes's do!

Edit: I mean 3 lefts do.

minidazzler · 01-06-2009 01:33PM

Terry wrote: »

So who kills the killer and does the killer of the killer then get killed by someone else?

No, he kills "himself" Convieniently all cameras were turned off and a perfect noose is what he is found hanging on.

Terry · 01-06-2009 01:36PM

minidazzler wrote: »

No, he kills "himself" Convieniently all cameras were turned off and a perfect noose is what he is found hanging on.

But why would he kill himself?
Was he depressed?
There's treatment for that these days.

minidazzler · 01-06-2009 01:38PM

Terry wrote: »

But why would he kill himself?
Was he depressed?
There's treatment for that these days.

I refuse to dignify this with an answer.

Otherwise we will be here all day!!!

AARRRGH · 01-06-2009 01:48PM

jells bells wrote: »

From CNN: His patients were "almost always in circumstances where something had gone horribly wrong with a pregnancy," and where a woman's health would be endangered if the pregnancy continued...

Almost always is unacceptable. It should just be always. Late term abortion as a lifestyle choice is a horrendously selfish and nasty decision. "Oh I don't want to wait two or three more months because I'm tired of being pregnant." Dumbasses.

seanybiker wrote: »

67 years is fairly late term alright.
Delighted he is dead.

Indeed. The guy had it coming. I have no sympathy for him.

philologos · 01-06-2009 02:06PM

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Just as long as you remember that Jesus had no stance on abortion. None at all. There is no possible way to spin it.

He was opposed to killing however, and abortion falls under that category

. I'll remember this too.

phic · 01-06-2009 02:08PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Almost always is unacceptable. It should just be always. Late term abortion as a lifestyle choice is a horrendously selfish and nasty decision. "Oh I don't want to wait two or three more months because I'm tired of being pregnant." Dumbasses.

Indeed. The guy had it coming. I have no sympathy for him.

Under Kansas law, late term abortion is illegal unless carrying the foetus to full term will cause "permanent loss of a bodily function" to the mother. Although some of the abortions he carried out were contested in court, all were found to be legal.
It's incredibly ignorant to say anyone has an abortion because they're "tired of being pregnant", and vindictave to say a doctor would carry out an abortion for this reason.
George Tiller risked, and lost his life to give women the reproductive rights they are entitled to, and I for one am sorry that he is dead.

minidazzler · 01-06-2009 02:09PM

Jakkass wrote: »

He was opposed to killing however, and abortion falls under that category . I'll remember this too.

That depends on who you ask. Pro-Choice people don't think it's killing. How do you know if Jesus was Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

thebman · 01-06-2009 02:09PM

Reminds me of It's always sunny in philidephia episode called Charlie wants an abortion.

Mac: You know, Den, I was thinking about what you were saying the other day about the t-shirts with the stupid slogans on them, and I was wondering what you think about this! (reveals a shirt that says "Death to baby killers") Huh, bitch? Yeah, is that stupid enough for ya?

Megan: What's this?
Mac: That's a list of the doctors I'm going to kill.
Megan: There's two already crossed out.
Mac: Yeah, I know.
(Afterwards, they proceed to have sex in a car.)

philologos · 01-06-2009 02:11PM

I don't consider it a matter of who you ask:

1. Growth is an attribute of life.
2. A human foetus is growing.
3. A human foetus is alive.

Killing is killing. If someone is alive, to make it so that it is no longer alive is killing. There isn't much wriggle room around that.

minidazzler · 01-06-2009 02:13PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider it a matter of who you ask:

1. Growth is an attribute of life.
2. A human foetus is growing.
3. A human foetus is alive.

Killing is killing. If someone is alive, to make it so that it is no longer alive is killing. There isn't much wriggle room around that.

But the Foetes depends on it's host for survival, therefore it's actually a Parasite. If I had a Blood Parasite would it be killing for me to get rid of it?

I am actually Anti-Abortion, but in reality I just don'r care. But Arguing that a Foetus is alive is just crazy.

AARRRGH · 01-06-2009 02:15PM

phic wrote: »

Under Kansas law, late term abortion is illegal unless carrying the foetus to full term will cause "permanent loss of a bodily function" to the mother. Although some of the abortions he carried out were contested in court, all were found to be legal.
It's incredibly ignorant to say anyone has an abortion because they're "tired of being pregnant", and vindictave to say a doctor would carry out an abortion for this reason.
George Tiller risked, and lost his life to give women the reproductive rights they are entitled to, and I for one am sorry that he is dead.

You missed the almost always part of my post.

If they only almost always perform late term abortions because the woman or child are in danger, that means they also perform abortions for other reasons, i.e. where the woman or child are not in danger, i.e. for lifestyle reasons.

That is indefensible.

Terry · 01-06-2009 02:16PM

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

None of you see the hypocricy? No?
You're all happy that this man is dead while your Christian ethos tells you that murder is wrong?

I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that you really shouldn't kill anyone.
Actually, belief is the wrong word.
Your god commands that you not kill anyone.
He also commands that you not covet your neighbour's stuff. I think if you read into it correctly, that you will find that commandment includes not gloating when someone is murdered.

So technically you are not Christian if you are happy about this crime of murder.
You're actually leaning towards worshipping Satan.
See, he'd be happy about this, but God wouldn't.

If I was you, I'd start praying because the Abrahamic God is not going to be too pleased about your comments on this thread. I'd imagine he'd banish you to hell for gloating about someone being murdered.
Best of luck with that. Remember that he is a vengeful God.

philologos · 01-06-2009 02:17PM

minidazzler wrote: »

But the Foetes depends on it's host for survival, therefore it's actually a Parasite. If I had a Blood Parasite would it be killing for me to get rid of it?

The child depends on it's mother and father for survival, therefore it's actually a parasite?

Do you not understand that this is a fallacy? Dependance doesn't stop something being a human life.

If you had a blood parasite it wouldn't be killing a human being to get rid of it no. A blood parasite hasn't been formed from a sperm and a zygote and it isn't going to form into a human being just like you and me. A foetus is as we would expect human life at such an early stage.

minidazzler wrote: »

I am actually Anti-Abortion, but in reality I just don'r care. But Arguing that a Foetus is alive is just crazy.

It isn't crazy, it's factual. A foetus is certainly alive by the assessment of the criteria of growth biologically. Read the links on my signature to get a fuller view on my understanding on abortion, I don't want to repeat myself here.

philologos · 01-06-2009 02:20PM

Terry wrote: »

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

No, I think that it is horrible that this man has died even if he facilitated the death of many others he shouldn't have been murdered. This is nothing to rejoice about.

Terry wrote: »

None of you see the hypocricy? No?
You're all happy that this man is dead while your Christian ethos tells you that murder is wrong?

I don't see how anyone could be happy at this.

Terry wrote: »

I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that you really shouldn't kill anyone.

Amen.

Terry wrote: »

Actually, belief is the wrong word.
Your god commands that you not kill anyone.
He also commands that you not covet your neighbour's stuff. I think if you read into it correctly, that you will find that commandment includes not gloating when someone is murdered.

Yes, that's right.

Terry wrote: »

So technically you are not Christian if you are happy about this crime of murder.
You're actually leaning towards worshipping Satan.
See, he'd be happy about this, but God wouldn't.

Not objecting to this at all. This man acted on his anger and took another man in cold blood. Much like Cain took Abels life in Genesis ch 4.

Terry wrote: »

If I was you, I'd start praying because the Abrahamic God is not going to be too pleased about your comments on this thread. I'd imagine he'd banish you to hell for gloating about someone being murdered.
Best of luck with that. Remember that he is a vengeful God.

Bad idea to gloat, gotcha.

AARRRGH · 01-06-2009 02:21PM

Terry wrote: »

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

I'm not a Christian, but I think baby killing is wrong. That's all.

Benhonan · 01-06-2009 02:23PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The child depends on it's mother and father for survival, therefore it's actually a parasite?

That's a social dependence, it's entirely different from a biological, parasitic dependence. Growth is one factor of life, it's not definitive in and of itself. Geographic formations grow ffs. As for human life, well that's a different ball game altogether. Is a pre-implantation embryo (a ball of cells smaller than a full stop which is basically a blob) human life also? The Church's stance on this before was that life begins when the foetus first moves, about 3 months into the pregnancy (I think) so what's to say that the current stance is more in line with JHC's teachings than that one, or the pro-life one for that matter?

TPD · 01-06-2009 02:24PM

Jakkass - I'm sure you were just asking who was gloating. seanybiker for one.

phic · 01-06-2009 02:24PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

You missed the almost always part of my post.

If they only almost always perform late term abortions because the woman or child are in danger, that means they also perform abortions for other reasons, i.e. where the woman or child are not in danger, i.e. for lifestyle reasons.

That is indefensible.

I didn't miss the almost always part of your post I'm telling you that it's wrong. CNN said that something had "almost always" gone wrong in the pregnancy. Continuing the pregnancy to full term could still endanger the woman/foetus' life without something having gone wrong in the pregnancy.e.g depression.

Handsome Bob · 01-06-2009 02:25PM

TPD wrote: »

Jakkass - I'm sure you were just asking who was gloating. seanybiker for one.

Seanybiker I believe is an atheist not a christian. I could be wrong though.

TPD · 01-06-2009 02:28PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Seanybiker I believe is an atheist not a christian. I could be wrong though.

Ah, my mistake if so. Even so, I think Terry's original statement was to all the Pro-Life Christians out there who are happy about this man being killed, not just in this thread. And I'm sure there are many.

Borneo Fnctn · 01-06-2009 02:28PM

minidazzler wrote: »

But the Foetes depends on it's host for survival, therefore it's actually a Parasite.

A parasite is a different species to the host.

AARRRGH · 01-06-2009 02:29PM

phic wrote: »

I didn't miss the almost always part of your post I'm telling you that it's wrong. CNN said that something had "almost always" gone wrong in the pregnancy. Continuing the pregnancy to full term could still endanger the woman/foetus' life without something having gone wrong in the pregnancy.e.g depression.

You do understand almost always doesn't mean always?

philologos · 01-06-2009 02:30PM

Benhonan wrote: »

That's a social dependence, it's entirely different from a biological, parasitic dependence. Growth is one factor of life, it's not definitive in and of itself. Geographic formations grow ffs. As for human life, well that's a different ball game altogether. Is a pre-implantation embryo (a ball of cells smaller than a full stop which is basically a blob) human life also? The Church's stance on this before was that life begins when the foetus first moves, about 3 months into the pregnancy (I think) so what's to say that the current stance is more in line with JHC's teachings than that one, or the pro-life one for that matter?

Geographic formations are not biological entities. Ever heard of the fallacy of equivalence? That basically covers this kind of error

As for a "ball of cells", that is what a human life looks at at that stage, it doesn't mean that it isn't a human life in the womb. That's another fallacy that comes up in pro-choice argumentation. "It doesn't look like a baby therefore it isn't". Do you realise people argued that blacks didn't look like humans in the past? That is currently regarded as insanity. People argued that people with deformities didn't look like humans in the past. That is currently regarded as insanity.

As for the teachings of the Catholic Church, I'm not an adherent of the Catholic Church. As such I would hold that the Bible holds more authority than anything that has come out of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Although useful guides in a lot of senses their teachings on embryology come from an age firstly that pre-dates current embryology by a long shot, and it comes from philosophy not from divine revelation.

What's to say that the current stance is closer to Christs? Considering the Jewish respect of life, and the refusal to eat blood because it is the source of all life, and the respect that Jesus had for children. I don't think that it is something that He would have advocated. The Didache which is a document which is dated to the 1st century and the document thought to be written at the Council of Jerusalem in 55AD by the Apostles condemned abortion explicitly. Understanding the Jewish culture of that day, and understanding the regard for life that they had it's hardly likely that abortions would have been encouraged by Jesus.

Terry · 01-06-2009 02:32PM

Jakkass wrote: »

He was opposed to killing however, and abortion falls under that category . I'll remember this too.

Absolutely no mention of the word Foetus in the bible. Not one mention.
How do you know that Jesus was against it if it's not mentioned?
How do you know that he didn't get Mary Magdalene pregnant only for her to decide to have an abortion and for Jesus to give his support to her/

I know it's not mentioned in the bible, but neither is abortion, so you cannot say for sure that Jesus was against abortion.

It's your opinion that he was against it, but it's mine that he was all for it.
Yes, you read it right. I'm saying that Jesus was pro-choice.

Medical science didn't really exist in his time, so he couldn't have had much knowledge about foetii. If he did, I'm sure he would have specifically mentioned it.
I'm sure God himself would have mentioned it to Moses too, but I see absolutely no mention of it in either the bible or the koran.

There is absolutely no possible way for anyone calling themself a Christain can say, with 100% certainty, that God, in any of his forms, was either pro-choice or pro-life.

thebman · 01-06-2009 02:34PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

You do understand always always doesn't mean always?

lol, that is completely irrelevant.

The guy was found not guilty of breaking the state laws in every case that actually managed to get to court. Everything else is irrelevant. He is a law abiding citizen that has been murdered for doing his job and trying as he saw it to help the community.

If your arguing that we should all go around murdering people who don't have the same morales as us regardless of whether it breaks the law or not, I disagree.

Nobody should be cheering this guys death or trying to claim that it is justified IMO. It is murder by a fanatic IMO.

Terry · 01-06-2009 02:36PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm not a Christian, but I think baby killing is wrong. That's all.

Who killed babies?

Pro life murder

Comments