Posted on 06/07/2009 11:29:06 AM PDT by September
After reading numerous ‘Statements on the Death of George Tiller’ from high profile pro-life leaders which said ‘we must strongly condemn such senseless acts of violence’, ‘killing is never the answer’, and ‘anyone who is truly pro-life will be saddened by Dr. Tiller’s death’ I had to ask myself one question.
If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence? That would be unthinkable. He would be extolled as brave American hero who saved babies from a deranged mass murderer.
However after the shooting of Dr. Tiller I’ve learned most people, even those who are pro-life, do not speak well of individuals who stop abortion doctors with deadly force, even though these doctors are serial child killers.
Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?
The best I understand it is the children abortionists kill are the "undesirables" in our society, just like the Jews were in Hitler’s Germany. Human beings who are unwanted, dehumanized, and stripped of civil rights. Second, people do not speak well of someone who uses deadly force to stop an abortionist because it is legal for a doctor to kill these children, just like it was legal to kill Jews.
Although it was legal to kill Jews in Hitler's Germany it was not right, and the Nazis were murderers even though their laws vindicated them. Importantly, the doctors in the death camps were murderers not merely because a Tribunal said so, those doctors were murders because they committed widespread inhumane atrocities, barbaric crimes against humanity, and systematic state-sponsored extermination of millions of people.
Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. In the name of civility and in an effort to save children from mass murder at the hands of an abortion doctor I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.
Let us pray abortion will also be criminalized as the Holocaust is.
While I do understand the point you are trying to make, please keep in mind that very, very few doctors want to have anything at all to do with abortions.
Then, an even smaller group, perhaps 5 or 6, will do the gruesome late term abortions that Tiller was infamous for.
So, yes, Tiller’s death will reduce the numbers of abortions for at least awhile. At the very least, Tiller’s death will reduce the number of late term abortions.
I am not trying to advocate shooting abortionists, I am only stating the facts.
Save it. You don't even have the faculties to understand the point that Gene Eric was making, even after my input, so take your ill-informed condescending attitude and shove it...
Murder is Murder. The penalty for Murder is Death. It says so in the Ten Commandments too.
“God will deal with both of them I’m sure.”
God is dealing or has dealt with Tiller already.
If what God’s word says is true (I believe) then Tiller is in a very warm place - without air conditioning.
You should ping me when making direct reference to my posts.
>> A non-sequitur is when the poster speciously tries to equate the death of an individual performing abortions as an impediment to behavior done by someone else performing abortions.
You have a topological problem with your reasoning. If in fact Tiller was murdered for his abortion practice, the context would be much broader than the isolated crimes you’re making comparisons to. It is not a stretch, nor illogical, nor irrational to suggest that others who perform similar forms of Abortion would be intimidated as a consequence of this event. Regardless, this direction of logic was not a factor in my initial comment that you criticized.
Legal abortion will never stop so long as women think they are morally excused, and I for one, will not provide them with that excuse. My position on this is non negotiable.
Other than that, you do what you think is right, and compromise, what you think you need to. Personally in the end, I think you're making a deal with the devil...
Well then, let me add my voice to "the noise":
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; and unto God, what is God's.But maybe that doesn't sound terribly helpful....
Anyhoot am going to bed now, so I wish you good night and pleasant dreams, csense!
“You give me the names of 100 pregnant women who would give their child up for adoption and I will find you qualified adoptive parents who will pay medical expenses and a stipend for living expenses up to the birth... it’ll take me only a few weeks and that only because it would take time to get the word out.”
I would agree if your talking about Caucasian babies. Blacks adopt only a few, and only a relatively small percentage of white couples will consider a non-white baby as their first choice.
Do you dispute that?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; and unto God, what is God's.
But maybe that doesn't sound terribly helpful....
Well, there you go, from your ears to mine....
And if Hell freezes over...
I disagree. Every society has to have a moral compass, in which the overwhelming majority of the citizenry must agree, and If not there is only chaos.
While there has always been a minority of people who wish to make abortion legal in any form or for any reason, and at any time in the pregnancy; the majority of Americans ( as well as doctors) disagree vehemently.
Late term abortion has always been illegal, and yet this particular Doctor disregarded this law, and our judicial system allowed ( even facilitated) his ability to do so.
While I do not condone the man who chose to shoot this Doctor, I certainly do not condemn what he did as an act of Murder, as much an act of outrage at our legal system.
IF our legal system actually applied the law equally, then this Doctor would have been stopped long ago, and perhaps the violent act would have been averted.
But because we have legislators who consider their own personal interest above the good of the nation, their corruption of the system leads to justifiable outrage, and sometimes ends in acts such as these.
Perhaps two wrongs don't make a right. But when one wrong is committed, it's only human and natural to expect that some one will eventually react to it in like regard.
You are ALONE in your arguments, pretty much.
I would also say that you come off as a bit misogynistic, a bit anti-woman, a bit like the very WRONG stereotype of the left tries to use, against us.
There is no legal, logical, moral or historical reason why we should be compelled to treat the mothers who have illegal abortions harshly, with prison or with jail time.
Really? Explain to me then how it is you're going to make elective abortion illegal if the choice itself is morally justified....because there can be no moral neutrality for any of the parties involved, since we are talking about human life. It is by definition, a moral issue.
Yet you talk about making elective abortion illegal in post #151. Quite frankly I think you are the one who doesn't know what the hell they''re talking about.....
Go pound sand.
nice deconstruction of my words to suit your own ends...
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.