the first couple 100 or so are hard, the rest? pffff no sweat... right?
Posted on 12/19/2014 6:59:15 PM PST by Morgana
Dr. Julius Butler, then professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said the following about abortionists:
Remember, there is a human being at the other end of the table taking that kid apart. We’ve had guys drinking too much, taking drugs, even a suicide or two.
Note that he refers to a baby being aborted as “that kid” and not “that tissue” or “that collection of cells.”
The sight of baby body parts being pulled out of a woman can haunt abortionists.
Whether the abortionist believes he is helping women or is determined to make money doing abortions, he can be troubled by the work.
Some abortionists do develop a completely remorseless character. Watching a video of Dr. LeRoy Carhart joking about taking a baby apart with a drill bit shows how callous some can be towards life.
Others, however, do a few abortions and then quit, and some of these convert to the pro-life cause. Instruments of death: tools used to kill babies in abortions.
Butler does not give details about the abortionists he spoke of, nor does he say whether the ones who committed suicide were former abortionists who had repented or doctors who were still doing abortions. Yet despite his lack of details, the quote shows that there are some – probably many – abortionists who are not immune to the horror of what they do.
Abortion clinics all over the country are full of doctors who have no sympathy toward unborn babies and are willing to tear them apart for money, or perhaps out of a misguided belief that they are helping women. Hardened to the suffering of the child being aborted, some of these doctors have performed tens of thousands of abortions. But there are those who repent, and those who struggle with their consciences.
And among those who quit, the guilt and remorse can be overpowering. This is why outreaches to abortionists and clinic workers are so important. Abby Johnson’s And Then There Were None, with its goal of converting abortion workers and its healing retreats for them, is a good ministry to support.
We can only hope that the grisly nature of abortion will lead more abortionists to convert. The pro-life movement should welcome them and help them heal.
II. Definition of Serial Murder
In the past thirty years, multiple definitions of serial murder have been used by law enforcement, clinicians, academia, and researchers. While these definitions do share several common themes, they differ on specific requirements, such as the number of murders involved, the types of motivation, and the temporal aspects of the murders. To address these discrepancies, attendees at the Serial Murder Symposium examined the variations in order to develop a single definition for serial murder.
Previous definitions of serial murder specified a certain number of murders, varying from two to ten victims. This quantitative requirement distinguished a serial murder from other categories of murder (i.e. single, double, or triple murder).
Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period.
Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).
There has been at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings:
The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.
Although the federal law provides a definition of serial murder, it is limited in its application. The purpose of this definition was to set forth criteria establishing when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial murder cases. It was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder.
The Symposium attendees reviewed the previous definitions and extensively discussed the pros and cons of the numerous variations. The consensus of the Symposium attendees was to create a simple but broad definition, designed for use primarily by law enforcement.
One discussion topic focused on the determination of the number of murders that constituted a serial murder. Academicians and researchers were interested in establishing a specific number of murders, to allow clear inclusion criteria for their research on serial killers. However, since the definition was to be utilized by law enforcement, a lower number of victims would allow law enforcement more flexibility in committing resources to a potential serial murder investigation.
Motivation was another central element discussed in various definitions; however, attendees felt motivation did not belong in a general definition, as it would make the definition overly complex.
The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement.
The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:
• one or more offenders • two or more murdered victims • incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times • the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder
In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:
Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder
the first couple 100 or so are hard, the rest? pffff no sweat... right?
Yeh...they get over excited at the bank.
You’re probably right but it’s not funny.
wasn't meant to be... i doubt the ones that do it were ever bothered by the first one let alone the rest
Sociopaths are noted for being completely devoid of empathy or remorse.
have to be to preform partial birth murder
Ask your obgyn off they kill babies for money. If they do or if they won’t answer, do not use that doctor for your pregnancy.
When they try to justify abortion by claiming that they are committing it to support women’s rights, they are not saying that because they believe it, but to hoodwink the gullible. They don’t have to believe it themselves, nor are they able to. Their brains are defective—they really do not have the parts of the brain responsible for empathy.
Brings to mind the phrase; There’s a special place in Hell...
I bought a boat from a guy a couple years ago who had the most haunted look I’d ever seen on a human face. He mentioned that he was a doctor, and when I asked his specialty he said he was a ‘baby doctor’. I googled his name when I got home, and found that he was an abortionist.
I’d imagine their work robs them of their souls. I can’t fathom the absolute void they must feel within to do what they do on a daily basis. And what I can’t comprehend is the compromise they make with their internal moral compass in order to rake in money to lead the lifestyles (I assume) they must lead given this is a financially lucrative business. Truly the work of Satan, that one is willing to sacrifice their eternal lives to live high on the hog during their finite mortal existence. Leads me to wonder if they are athiests or satanists. It’s the only way I can make sense of nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.