Abortion Doctor George Tiller Reportedly Killed at Church

[Nik]

Doesn't matter how you label it, you're pushing your morals on them.

Yeah...my morals that we shouldn't kill 12 year olds. Wow...what a divisive and crazy concept that is so controversial that we can't have a law about.

Your morals aren't any better than anyone else's.

Oy. Way to miss the point. Everyone agrees that a mother shouldn't be able to kill her 12 year old son. Therefore my particular morals has nothing to do with it, its everyones morals who say that.

 

[Newby]

Yeah...my morals that we shouldn't kill 12 year olds. Wow...what a divisive and crazy concept that is so controversial that we can't have a law about.

Your morals aren't any better than anyone else's.

Oy. Way to miss the point. Everyone agrees that a mother shouldn't be able to kill her 12 year old son. Therefore my particular morals has nothing to do with it, its everyones morals who say that.

I like how it's the word 'kill' now, but when it's an unborn baby, the word 'kill' doesn't seem to apply. I don't care how you spin it, you're forcing your morals on that woman and her son who have the right to choose how they handle his medical situation. It's no different than what you claim pro-life people are trying to do. It's called hypocrisy, double standard etc... If you agree with the action then it's okay to force your morals on others, if you don't, then you scream the opposite. You can't sit on both sides of the fence and keep any intellectual honesty, that's not how it works. At least not in the real world.

 

[Nik]

Your morals aren't any better than anyone else's.

Oy. Way to miss the point. Everyone agrees that a mother shouldn't be able to kill her 12 year old son. Therefore my particular morals has nothing to do with it, its everyones morals who say that.

I like how it's the word 'kill' now, but when it's an unborn baby, the word 'kill' doesn't seem to apply. I don't care how you spin it, you're forcing your morals on that woman and her son who have the right to choose how they handle his medical situation. It's no different than what you claim pro-life people are trying to do. It's called hypocrisy, double standard etc... If you agree with the action then it's okay to force your morals on others, if you don't, then you scream the opposite. You can't sit on both sides of the fence and keep any intellectual honesty, that's not how it works. At least not in the real world.

Really? Its only that either we can force our morals on others, or we can't at all? Theres no middle ground? Like maybe, some things are ok to force on others and some aren't?

 

[Newby]

Oy. Way to miss the point. Everyone agrees that a mother shouldn't be able to kill her 12 year old son. Therefore my particular morals has nothing to do with it, its everyones morals who say that.

I like how it's the word 'kill' now, but when it's an unborn baby, the word 'kill' doesn't seem to apply. I don't care how you spin it, you're forcing your morals on that woman and her son who have the right to choose how they handle his medical situation. It's no different than what you claim pro-life people are trying to do. It's called hypocrisy, double standard etc... If you agree with the action then it's okay to force your morals on others, if you don't, then you scream the opposite. You can't sit on both sides of the fence and keep any intellectual honesty, that's not how it works. At least not in the real world.

Really? Its only that either we can force our morals on others, or we can't at all? Theres no middle ground? Like maybe, some things are ok to force on others and some aren't?

Why don't you explain when it's okay too and when it's not okay? Who gets to decide that? Over 1/2 of American believe that abortion is wrong and immoral.

 

[Nik]

I like how it's the word 'kill' now, but when it's an unborn baby, the word 'kill' doesn't seem to apply. I don't care how you spin it, you're forcing your morals on that woman and her son who have the right to choose how they handle his medical situation. It's no different than what you claim pro-life people are trying to do. It's called hypocrisy, double standard etc... If you agree with the action then it's okay to force your morals on others, if you don't, then you scream the opposite. You can't sit on both sides of the fence and keep any intellectual honesty, that's not how it works. At least not in the real world.

Really? Its only that either we can force our morals on others, or we can't at all? Theres no middle ground? Like maybe, some things are ok to force on others and some aren't?

Why don't you explain when it's okay too and when it's not okay? Who gets to decide that? Over 1/2 of American believe that abortion is wrong and immoral.

Over 50%? Care to provide a link to that figure?

And no I'm not going to detail a bright line rule. I can name some considerations that go into it, but its not going to be an easy thing to figure out.

 

[Newby]

Really? Its only that either we can force our morals on others, or we can't at all? Theres no middle ground? Like maybe, some things are ok to force on others and some aren't?

Why don't you explain when it's okay too and when it's not okay? Who gets to decide that? Over 1/2 of American believe that abortion is wrong and immoral.

Over 50%? Care to provide a link to that figure?

And no I'm not going to detail a bright line rule. I can name some considerations that go into it, but its not going to be an easy thing to figure out.

That was a news story out several weeks ago, Google it.

Of course you're not going to 'figure that out', except that it's a hard and fast rule when the left thinks the right is 'forcing morals', when the reverse is happening then all of a sudden you can't 'detail a bright line rule'. The left is just as guilty of 'forcing their morals' as anyone else, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Nik]

Why don't you explain when it's okay too and when it's not okay? Who gets to decide that? Over 1/2 of American believe that abortion is wrong and immoral.

Over 50%? Care to provide a link to that figure?

And no I'm not going to detail a bright line rule. I can name some considerations that go into it, but its not going to be an easy thing to figure out.

That was a news story out several weeks ago, Google it.

Yes, I remember it. Do you know why it was a news story? Because it was barely over 50% and it was the first poll that ever said that. So claiming on the basis of one poll, when ALL the other ones have said something else is pretty intellectually dishonest on your part.

Of course you're not going to 'figure that out', except that it's a hard and fast rule when the left thinks the right is 'forcing morals', when the reverse is happening then all of a sudden you can't 'detail a bright line rule'. The left is just as guilty of 'forcing their morals' as anyone else, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Well there are some hard and fast rules when NOT to impose morals. One would be if it doesn't harm anyone.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

Okey dokey. I gave it my best shot. Y'all go kill each other then.

I'm sure the protestants and the catholics in Ireland felt exactly the same way.

 

[Newby]

Over 50%? Care to provide a link to that figure?

And no I'm not going to detail a bright line rule. I can name some considerations that go into it, but its not going to be an easy thing to figure out.

That was a news story out several weeks ago, Google it.

Yes, I remember it. Do you know why it was a news story? Because it was barely over 50% and it was the first poll that ever said that. So claiming on the basis of one poll, when ALL the other ones have said something else is pretty intellectually dishonest on your part.

Of course you're not going to 'figure that out', except that it's a hard and fast rule when the left thinks the right is 'forcing morals', when the reverse is happening then all of a sudden you can't 'detail a bright line rule'. The left is just as guilty of 'forcing their morals' as anyone else, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Well there are some hard and fast rules when NOT to impose morals. One would be if it doesn't harm anyone.

Yeah, and killing innocent babies isn't harming anyone.

 

[Nik]

That was a news story out several weeks ago, Google it.

Yes, I remember it. Do you know why it was a news story? Because it was barely over 50% and it was the first poll that ever said that. So claiming on the basis of one poll, when ALL the other ones have said something else is pretty intellectually dishonest on your part.

Of course you're not going to 'figure that out', except that it's a hard and fast rule when the left thinks the right is 'forcing morals', when the reverse is happening then all of a sudden you can't 'detail a bright line rule'. The left is just as guilty of 'forcing their morals' as anyone else, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Well there are some hard and fast rules when NOT to impose morals. One would be if it doesn't harm anyone.

Yeah, and killing innocent babies isn't harming anyone.

Well I was referring to the rights penchant for denying equality to gays, but nice try.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Hard to feel sad over the death of a mass murderer.

So you're down with domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism advocated by the right wing-nut wank stains like Randall Terry, Bill O'Reilly and rest of their ilk. You're pathetic, and a wank stain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I think most of us wonder about the mental disposition of anyone who has such an obvious and obsessive hatred of people who don't share their beliefs.

You shouldn't be so hard on poor Willy.

Seriously, Jillian. I don't hate people like you and Willy because you don't share my beliefs. I hate you because you lower the IQ of a room by several standard deviations just by walking into it.

No? Funny, from what I've seen on this board, a goodly number of you just sit back and say "well, the guy deserved it". I'd say that's encouraging AND defending. But keep ramping up the insane rhetoric.

First of all, Mensa Girl, this board ain't the world, it ain't the nation, and it ain't the Christian community, so do NOT cite to me "I saw this on these boards" as indicative of anything relevant. Second of all, being unsurprised that performing evil acts brings one to an evil end is not encouraging anyone to go out and commit other evil acts, and it's hardly defending evil acts of any sort. Not that I would expect you to understand anything having to do with recognizing evil.

I do so love that "christian" tolerance. Thank G-d you aren't representative of most Christians I've known. But I also have to compliment you on the use of irony.

I will worry about impressing you with my tolerance 1) when I start worrying about tolerance as some great virtue to begin with, and 2) when those of you who run around bragging about your extreme and impressive tolerance stop being such a bunch of hate-filled, hypocritical bigots while doing so.

If you want to compliment anyone on their use of irony, it should be God for creating Tolerance Nazis like you.

ya... y'all just sit around calling people who believe in choice "murderers", but there's no "ours" or anything...and it's not like you have any responsibilty for the logical conclusion of your attitudes and action.

Tell you what, dimwit. When you actually read the post and your response bears some resemblance to it, I'll bother to answer. In the meantime, I'll give you what this incoherent piece of crap deserves: BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!!!!

Weren't you the one just ripping moderate muslims a new one for NOT condemning THEIR lunatic fringe? You are just too funny today. The hypocricy is so thick we can cut it with a knife.

You're right. It is. So stop being such a damned hypocrite. And if you could stop being a moron, that would be good, too.

Those are the "activists" on your behalf. Aren't you proud of what their efforts have wrought?

When I need someone else to appoint my activists for me, it won't be someone whose two brain cells are huddling together for warmth in the middle of the vast, cold emptiness that is the vacuum between your ears. So why don't you stop flattering yourself that you're qualified to tell me anything about who does and doesn't represent me?

 

[AllieBaba]

That was priceless. Please do it again!

 

[Agnapostate]

Jesus doesn't like lesbianism, Allie. I think Cecilie's out of bounds for you.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, my appetites are biblically sound...and legal.

Which is more than we can say for yours, methinks.

 

[jeffrockit]

Agreed. I give the highest probability to a religious motive. I am trying to recall the last incident involving a secular terrorist act against abortion.

police have the suspect in custody
still no word on his motive
i say the guy is mentally unstable no matter what he claims as a motive
but then i believe ANYONE that would murder someone is mentally unstable

btw, i dont agree with "innocent by reason of insannity" defense
i think it should be "guilty, but mentally insane"

I do wonder about the mental disposition of the people who often support violence for religion too. Trying not to jump the gun on this guy but the odds are that it was a religious motive. We often see numbers of religious people, Christians, church members who will shelter, encourage or defend the these actions although they might not be able to do it themselves.

A friend of mine has his own theory on putting an end to the insanity defense. You may plead insanity but the penalty for insanity is death.

And the guy that shot the soldier in front of the recruiting office was Muslim. Odds are that was a religious motive....what's your point? Where is the outrage from the moderate Muslims?
All the speculating on if this was a "Christian" that killed the doctor and none about the Muslim that killed one soldier and wounded another.
You can't place this on Christianity just like you can't place the other murder on Islam.

 

[Immanuel]

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

When you ride in a car, there is ALWAUS a chance of getting injured in a crash
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep on walking

I am willing to take that risk. That is why I buy insurance and pay for my medical and repair expenses in advance. I cannot wait until after I get in an accident and then pay for my insurance. Abstinence and Birth Control are forms of insurance against pregnancy. Abortion is like buying insurance after the "accident".

You want to insure against pregnancy? Then don't have sex. If you decide to have sex then put on the insurance before the act. But you take the risk of having your insurance plan fail. Either way, you cannot go back and buy insurance after the act is done.

Immie

 

[Harry Dresden]

By that logic, if you were willing to step into a car, you should have been willing to accept the results of an accident. And therefore should have no right to be treated for wounds incurred in one.

so by your logic if a woman decides to have unprotected sex,and gets pregnant,it was an accident....

If she didn't want it, yes.

if she did not want it why did she take the chance and have sex?....so in other words Nik RESPONSIBILITY is not in your vocabulary.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

They are already forced to be fathers. It's up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants the baby, not the father, he has no say. And when she chooses the have the baby, the father is legally on the financial hook for 18+ years whether he wants to be a father or not. Someone like you would scream that he lost his rights to not be a father whenever he chose to have sex, but the rules are somehow different for women. That's called hypocrisy.

Thanks once again for telling me what I think. There's really no point in talking to someone that makes so many assumptions.

I've read enough of your posts, and you're right, most of the time you don't think. My mistake.

and apparently she/he has no concept of personal responsibility....

 

[Pyrite]

if she did not want it why did she take the chance and have sex?....so in other words Nik RESPONSIBILITY is not in your vocabulary.....

Why did you take the chance and get in that car if you didn't want a shard of glass through your artery? What entitles you to have it removed? Is RESPONSIBILITY not in your vocabulary?