Are Pro-Life Activists Justified in Their Extreme Actions?

[Adam]

I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Adam
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.

Yes, well the interesting thing is the broken symmetry. Pro-choice activists don't murder bishops, at least not yet.

The religious people do seem to have a more absolutist, manichean view of the world, which can lead in the extreme to killing one's opponents. There is no great religion that has not fallen into this sin, including Buddhism.

 

[member 5645]

No more contradicting than pro choice people against the death penalty.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by phatmonky
No more contradicting than pro choice people against the death penalty.

Was that aimed at me? I didn't say anything about contradiction, but since you bring that up...

The death penalty and abortion are a hard pair of oxen to yoke. Both sides have problems. The late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago tried to link them for Catholic pro-lifers with his Seamless Web teaching. Just as Jesus' robe, at the Crucifixion, had no seams along which it could be divided among the Roman soldiers, so our concern for life should not stop at fetuses but be extended to prisoners on death row as well. This is persuasive, but it's a hard sell to the pro-life community, since the people who are conservative on abortion tend to be conservative on the death penalty (i.e they're for it), too.

On the pro-choice side, as you say, many who are for the right to abortion are also for abolition of the death penalty. They explain this by the fact that - for them - the fetus is not a person, and the felon is. It is persons, human beings, whose life we should care about. And they deny, sometimes a little desperately, that a fetus is a person.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
1>Was that aimed at me? I didn't say anything about contradiction, but since you bring that up...

2>The death penalty and abortion are a hard pair of oxen to yoke. Both sides have problems. The late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago tried to link them for Catholic pro-lifers with his Seamless Web teaching. Just as Jesus' robe, at the Crucifixion, had no seams along which it could be divided among the Roman soldiers, so our concern for life should not stop at fetuses but be extended to prisoners on death row as well. This is persuasive, but it's a hard sell to the pro-life community, since the people who are conservative on abortion tend to be conservative on the death penalty (i.e they're for it), too.

On the pro-choice side, as you say, many who are for the right to abortion are also for abolition of the death penalty. They explain this by the fact that - for them - the fetus is not a person, and the felon is. It is persons, human beings, whose life we should care about. And they deny, sometimes a little desperately, that a fetus is a person.

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you in anyway :) Just an added thought , since prolife/death and prochoice/antideath tend to come in pairs. Simply, I think both are quite contradicting, but I do understand both sides reasonings.

 

[olde drunk]

if we can not prove that consciousness exists, how can we know when it enters the body.

accepting age-regression hypnosis, some remember being in the womb and others only remember the birth process. not knowing when the soul incarnates, we must accept the argument that a fetus is a part of the mother until birth. so let's leave the final decision with the mother. whether we officially do or not is impracticle. if the mother wants to abort, there will be an abortion.

philosophically, i believe this is a delemma being worked out by the three entities involved. the souls of the mother, father and child are jointly working on their relationship and/or either of them needs to work on this issue with the aide of the other two.

we can not legislate moraliy. each of us must follow our own credo.


peace,

 

[nix]

hmmm...im a bit confused..

I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors.

how can they be pro life if they kill life?

i am opposed to abortion (except in cases like rape and where either the baby or the mother is to die if the baby keeps growing..then it is the choice of the mom)..i think you have to take responsibility for your actions, if you screwed up you screwed up don't punish someone else because of it, also I am opposed to the death penalty (can you tell I am Canadian? lol..) i believe that no one should judge when a person should live or die, especially since sometimes you never really know if the person is guilty..just reasonable doubt..if the person was actually innoncent there is no way you can give them back their life (oops, so sorry i killed you..but i thought you really did it)even if they get a life sentence, they can be freed at any time and at least have the rest of their life to live

anyways, i would probably be considered prolife, and i would never condone the killing of doctors..
i think what you mean by prolife is anti-abortion?? is that what your talking about?

 

[Sikz]

The pro-life people who murder doctors should be shot .

I'd have to say I'm pro-death-penalty when there is a murder or a rape involved. If you murder someone you've (generally speaking; it needs to be up to the judge/jurors discression) given up your own right to life. If, for whatever reason, the judge/juror find you guilty of murder but not deserving of the death penalty, they should bestow upon you whatever punishment they see fit, but not life in prison. Tax-payer money does not need to go to feeding and housing murderers; if they deserve to live they deserve to live free anyway, after they have served their punishment (of FINITE time). Also, self-defence is most certainly not murder.

If you rape someone... I've no patience or toleration for those people. Frankly they would be shot in the knee-caps, castrated, and drowned if it was up to me- but our justice system won't allow that so I'll go with a normal death penalty. Under no circumstances should a rapist be left alive- murder is sometimes more acceptable than other times (EG murdering someone who's committed some grave insult towards you or your kin), but rape has no excuse. Ever.


And abortion... What's wrong with "killing" an undeveloped "creature"? Even if it has consciousness, it has no more intelligence than the animals we kill for food- so if it has consciousness there's no reason to think they don't. If it's okay to kill them... And some things (EG the morning-after pill) abort when all that exists is a several-celled creature- not even a brain yet. If we can kill ants without a thought, why not a several-celled creature with NO brain at all? Oh, it has a string of molecules in it that are also in you :S? I don't see the difference... Before the baby is borne it is, as someone said, part of the mother. No one else has any right to say what can be done to it.


Hopefully you aren't going to chase me down with pitchforks and torches now... Hehe.

 

[Njorl]

Most pro-life people don't kill doctors. Seriously, I'm pretty sure most don't even approve of it. I do find it a bit distressing that they don't more actively distance themselves from the nuts. I don't just mean the nuts who pull the trigger, but also the ones who do the research to find out doctors identities, addresses and habits, then post them on the net. While there are very few who pull the trigger, there are a disturbingly large number who walk the line to commiting accessory to murder.

Njorl

 

[Gale]

well, I'm split on both matters myself. I say that even an unborn child is a life nonetheless, and therefore shouldn't be killed unless absolutely necessary. Same with the death penalty, unless there are extreme cirucumstances warrenting it then I'm very much against it. but, i have a side to my person that is very economical, and it makes no sense to be having more unwanted children in this world, or to have tax payers pouring money into the living expenses of convicted felons... i tend to take the pro life stance in most cases anyways, but i can't but help think of how society would benifit would it be otherwise.

another issue, along the same lines is doctor assisted suicide, and on the same note, people who seek to murder those doctors. i personally, though now that i think of it, it seems a bit odd, but i side with the suiciders. To me life is a precious and valuable thing, hence my customary pro life stance, however, if the quality of life is so poor, i can't find a reason that a man must keep living if he choses that he'd rather not. even my economical side says that a man so unhappy that he choses to take his life, will not be any large benifit to society. either way though, perhaps another issue for discussion.

 

[kcballer21]

This thread is probably long since ignored by now, but I have to respond to sikz's comment.

And abortion... What's wrong with "killing" an undeveloped "creature"? Even if it has consciousness, it has no more intelligence than the animals we kill for food- so if it has consciousness there's no reason to think they don't. If it's okay to kill them... And some things (EG the morning-after pill) abort when all that exists is a several-celled creature- not even a brain yet. If we can kill ants without a thought, why not a several-celled creature with NO brain at all?

Well, I think the big problem with that line of reasoning is that you neglect the potential of that pre-human group of cells. I might assume you don't have children? A little baby of your own could easily change your stance. I once held your view, then everything changed...

 

[cowboy_mortician]

Killing an "undeveloped creature"? I've seen premies at like 5 mos live. Are you going to call them an "undevelloped" creature. So are you for killing "regular" people also? Do we have no more intelligence than the animals we eat? When do you make the separation between developed and undeveloped? Last I checked, we can't draw the line between alive and not. I am not taking a punch at anyone, I am just very curious on how people can think this.

 

[Rader]

I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.

I have said this before and this applies to "Pro Lifers"

It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

Human life should have the same dignity and respect from conception until natural death. This should be a universal law, not a whim for the choosing.

 

[olde drunk]

if and until, the right to lifers agree to adopt all the unwanted babies of the world, we can not consider the issue.

this is a personal choice of the mother, father and unborn. it is not societies concern what life lesson they are addressing.

how would you like to have the government establish a state church and require that you join and worship their god? you are asking the couple in question to accept your belief, it may not be what they accept as moral.

this might be the very issue that has them examine their beliefs and get closer to their god.

from a society view point, we not only limit the number of unwanted babies but we also save the lives of many, many girls that would seek illegal, unsafe solutions. regardless of what anyone prefers, these procedures will be done and if illegal, line the pockets of criminals.

we can not legislate morality. we can only educate and improve conditions so that a child is not a burden to the new parents.

peace,

 

[Dayle Record]

Pro Lifers are actively mentally ill. They project their religious beliefs as law onto others, in some cases taking life, in order to spare it. Pro lifers delusionally feel they have a personal relationship with a God that needs them to act out voyeuristically, in the protection of life. Pro lifers are biblical literalists, that believe, their angry, jealous God, is going to punish society as a whole if they don't act out against sinners. They feel they will be spared punishment, if they will only convincingly be God's best little sycophants. I can't imagine what their root motivations must be, I can't even imagine what their bedside prayers must be, especially those that take up weapons and go with their imaginary God's sanction, to kill. If you told a Psychiatrist that you felt an intimate connection to the unborn foetus of every stranger, that you felt protective, and that you wanted to have access to medical records of every pregnacy in the nation, in order to protect these foetuses better than their own mothers would; what would that diagnosis be? It has to be some sort of misplaced Meunchausens Syndrome. The attention the prolifer voyeurs expect is, from God himself. I would laugh myself silly over this, if it weren't how some laws get made, in this nation.

Regardless of any claims to the contrary, the Pro Life movement, is about self preservation, hatred, and control.

We live in a nation with a Constitution that guarantees us freedom to practice religion. I look at the middle east and the hateful human practices that spring from that area in general, and the ancient laws and beliefs that governed those ancients, should have no play in how we live as a society today.

If we were really pro life, we would act that way as a society, but we certainly do not. A recent example would be the math in regards to 9/11. Three thousand some odd, citizens died on that day, and more than ten thousand uninvolved Iraqis have now "died", because our"pro life government", is suddenly passionate about "democracy". 600 Iraqis died in Najaf last week, because our "pro life" government, hires mercenary killers, that were short on sense, and were tooling about in humvees, for reasons unknown, and got them selves killed. These hired killers are paid 15, 000 dollars a month, by our government, while Guardsmen and Women, go short on water, and rations, and armor; while their families can't make ends meet at home, and while they cut the medical benefits for veterans.

"Pro life" is a convenient pose that this government takes, in order to garner the Whacko religious right vote. Terrorist acts the Pro Lifers are involved in, just fuel the fires of terror in this nation, helping with the cause of empire building; that currently seems to be the cause of all foreign policy. Even pro life can be read as a tool of the empire builders, Orrin Hatch once said, that if women had unlimited access to abortion, then we would have a hard time raising armies. He really said that.

The physical form is mortal. If "God" wanted it some other way, it would be, some other way. In blind studies conducted among married women, four out of five, conceptions fail of natural causes. Natural causes=God, God kills four out of five foetuses in the first two weeks of pregnacy.

 

[russ_watters]

Killing an "undeveloped creature"? I've seen premies at like 5 mos live. Are you going to call them an "undevelloped" creature. So are you for killing "regular" people also? Do we have no more intelligence than the animals we eat? When do you make the separation between developed and undeveloped? Last I checked, we can't draw the line between alive and not. I am not taking a punch at anyone, I am just very curious on how people can think this.

Don't you see the contradiction inherrent in applying science to part of the issue, but not the whole issue or picking and choosing where to apply science?

The church does that a lot - do you think if Galileo had discovered the sun orbits the Earth he would have been persecuted?

Most people don't even know it, but the Catholic church's stance on abortion (life begins at conception) is only a few hunderd years old. The reason most people don't know it, of course, is that the Catholic Church is dishonest about it: http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

(2) Did the fetus have a soul from the moment of conception or did the soul enter its body at some later time? Before about 600 A.D., Christian scholars couldn't decide that one. Between 600 and 1500 A.D., the debate about whether abortion was homicide continued. There was no prevailing view that it was. In fact, penances given for abortion were often lighter than for bribery or theft. Therapeutic abortions were allowed to save the life of the mother as most theologians held that "ensoulment" was delayed and took place forty days after conception for males and eighty days for females[this is, of course, why males are smarter than females].

In the Middle Ages, little was known about the biology of reproduction. Scholars thought that women's ovaries were without any real function. They believed the male sperm contained fully formed babies which simply required the mother's womb as a place for them to grow.

I think I have good reason to question what the Catholic Church says about abortion.

edit: in re-reading this, it may be too religious of an issue for here...

 

[loseyourname]

I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.

 

[Dayle Record]

When I studied Sikhism, it was said that in a woman's pregnacy there was a 120th day celebration. They believe that the spirit takes residence in the unborn at the 120th day. Prior to that time, it was not celebrated. There are those that set the "life" issue back a bit.

 

[olde drunk]

I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.

that is what YOU believe. not everyone has the same view.

in fact, i believe that the 3 individuals involved make the decision with the mother holding an ultimate, final vote.

it is and always should be, a private, individual decision.

love & peace,
olde drunk

 

[loseyourname]

That is not only what I believe. What other distinction can you draw?

 

[cragwolf]

I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.

I have to agree with you; I don't think it's justifiable to use birth as a dividing line. That's why I support in certain restricted circumstances the right of parents to kill a newborn child. Those restricted circumstances involve a child which is severely disabled and is certain to die in the short term because of these disabilities. In fact, every day doctors and parents in hospitals all around the world already do something very similar: they let such infants die by opting to not pursue aggressive treatment that would only prolong the pain and agony of all concerned. But I find this even less humane then simply terminating the infant's life: why prolong the suffering at all?

 

[bloggs]

I think I have good reason to question what the Catholic Church says about abortion.QUOTE]

Both Saints Thomas and Jerome recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. They both condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms The question of ensoulment does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is wrong.

"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."

Regarding the moment of the soul, it is true that there has been discussion through out time on when this actually takes place but this does not change the fact that direct, intentional abortion is always wrong, and has always been wrong according to the Catholic Church.

Pro Lifers are actively mentally ill …..and all the rest of that post too long to quote..

What a gross generalisation! No wonder our ‘nation’ has such problems with such sweeping generalisations.

You should look up what extreme means and apply it to the appropriate groups.

 

[shonagon53]

When I studied Sikhism, it was said that in a woman's pregnacy there was a 120th day celebration. They believe that the spirit takes residence in the unborn at the 120th day. Prior to that time, it was not celebrated. There are those that set the "life" issue back a bit.

How strange, when I studied Anglo-American culture, I was surprized to find a group of American "ethics" professors who delay the issue. They call themselves utilitarian-eugenicists, and they say that only those babies who (they) are considering "healthy" and "flawless" deserve to be called "persons". After being born, a child must be completely examined and if there are any "critical defects" (who decides what is a critical defect?), the child does not deserve to be called a person.

This is what certain Americans who hold academic posts think today. I thought it was some bizarre 1930s German Nazi sect strangely surviving in the US, but no, they were considered to be quite normal "ethics" professors.

It was a scary discovery.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.

interesting on how so many men have their opinions on this subject. where are the women's opinions?

when a woman is carrying her child at 8 months term, that child already does certain things within the womb that give the child a personality-these habits are of course beyond the control of the mother. both my children did certain things when i was pregnant with them after about 6 months of carrying them. there is a real and valid reason our government allows abortion up to 3 months of the pregnancy. if a woman still decides to carry her child beyond that, but does not choose to be a mother, adoption is the best alternative. so yes loseyourname, a child does have a personality in the later stage of pregnancy (3rd trimester) without the need to breathe air on their own---they do technically get their oxygen through the umbillical cord. making the distinction that a child is not a person because it cannot breathe on its own is really ignorant, and i hate to stereotype, but this is typical coming from a male.

I have to agree with you; I don't think it's justifiable to use birth as a dividing line. That's why I support in certain restricted circumstances the right of parents to kill a newborn child.

yes, only in RESTRICTED circumstances that involve the decision of the doctor, the parent(s), and maybe even the law. there are so many tests in our day that can detect severe illness/conditions before birth. i have a down's syndrome brother that was known about when my mother was 3 months pregnant. it was her choice however to continue with the pregnancy. he had open heart surgery at 4 months old, had feeding tubes, takes medication for all sorts of smaller conditions due to the downs, is autistic...the list goes on and on. i personally couldn't do it, but if there are parents out there who are willing, then more power to them.

as for pro-lifers, i think they need to mind their own damn business.

 

[loseyourname]

making the distinction that a child is not a person because it cannot breathe on its own is really ignorant, and i hate to stereotype, but this is typical coming from a male.

I hope to whatever God you might believe in that you don't think that is what I was saying. My whole point is that a distinction cannot be drawn between a child just born and a child just unborn. It is inconsistent to allow a late-term abortion and yet disallow infanticide. I think it should be pretty apparent that I am not advocating infanticide; I am advocating the abolition of abortion.

 

[Kerrie]

okay loseyourname, slight misunderstanding in what you were advocating. i have read many posts from men in abortion threads claiming that a baby is not human until s/he is born...

 

[Entropy]

I'd just like to say one thing: if a women can do anything she wants to her body, then why isn't it legal for them to smoke weed (in the US atleast) or get anybody who says they are a doctor (despite having a licence) to operate on them or take prescription drugs?

The fact is that there is a choice other than abortion. Don't fool around and wait till you're married or atleast in a serious relationship with someone reliable.

 

[Evo]

I am very much pro-choice when it comes to first trimester abortion and think second & third trimester abortion should be allowed for medical reasons only.

Pro choice is "choice" of terminating or continuing the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that she is not emotionally or psychologically ready for can be disastrous and often results in child neglect and abuse. Adoption is not always an option, it can result in emotional and psychological problems for the mother.

Abstinence? You won't find much success there, especially with teenagers.

Also, no matter how careful a woman is, she can still get pregnant, no form of temporary contraception is 100% reliable.

This topic really has been beaten to death in more than one thread here. The same arguments over and over...

I say do what you feel is right for you and don't try to shove your personal beliefs on others. That goes for both sides of the argument.

 

[Entropy]

I say do what you feel is right for you and don't try to shove your personal beliefs on others. That goes for both sides of the argument.

Its different when your believes effect others that don't share it, especially when it kills them.

 

[Evo]

Its different when your believes effect others that don't share it, especially when it kills them.

Personally, I'd rather see an embryo aborted than a child tortured to death. I'd rather see neither, but I am not so naive that I think once the child is born everything is going to be just wonderful.

I don't see pro lifers fighting battles to help these children they want born. Do they realize that they could be sentencing that child to a much worse fate? Do they even care? How can they live with that? Why aren't they just as active about protecting these kids after they're born? Why don't I see any threads on the horrors of child abuse?

Preventing abortion will just cause more horrible abuse & death for children, but that's ok? Many that don't die will be emotionally scarred for life. Many then become abusers and killers. It's a vicious cycle. But they were born, isn't that wonderful? We can all sleep better at night knowing that it's because of our interference that they were born into a living hell.

In my opinion, any person that fights against one form of what they consider "taking a life" then does nothing to protect that life is a hypocrite.

Until the day I see anti abortion groups taking responsibility for the welfare of the children and mothers they want to have control over, I will remain pro choice.

 

[Kerrie]

I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.

oops looks like we veered off topic some...

 

[Evo]

I guess any response should include a look at the original post. :blush: Thanks for the reminder Kerrie.

I can shoe horn most of my reply to make it topical.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally Posted by Adam
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.

I think it is fairly obvious that “murder” isn’t actually what such people stand against. I suggest if they wish to become better acquainted with at least one source of trouble in this world they go look in a mirror.

 

[Entropy]

If the child really thought his life was worst than death then wouldn't the child commit suicide? I know that's a very grizzly and disturbing statement, but perhaps its the truth.

Until the day I see anti abortion groups taking responsibility for the welfare of the children and mothers they want to have control over, I will remain pro choice.

I'm sure there are thousands of people who have adopted children and are pro-life.

Preventing abortion will just cause more horrible abuse & death for children, but that's ok? Many that don't die will be emotionally scarred for life. Many then become abusers and killers. It's a vicious cycle. But they were born, isn't that wonderful? We can all sleep better at night knowing that it's because of our interference that they were born into a living hell.

One chooses to become a killer. I myself would be willing to be born into an abusive family instead of dying.

Whats next? If we find that a child might be born with a disease we abort it? Or if its mentally challeneged? Or if they might get cancer at 50? Then what? If they might have to wear glasses or braces? They'll just leave a life of suffering after all? They'll just continue the cycle by passing on there genes and creating more suffering. And what about a starving village in a third world country that can't get food. We better just bomb them to end there suffering. After all we are smarter than them, and we are the ones intellegent enough to decides who lives and who dies.

 

[Evo]

If the child really thought his life was worst than death then wouldn't the child commit suicide? I know that's a very grizzly and disturbing statement, but perhaps its the truth.

This is all off topic, so I cannot respond to all of your post. I will just briefly say that you should read up on and maybe even volunteer time in a shelter for battered and abused women & children. Donate time in a ward for children institutionalized for life that were born to mothers who were drug addicts and are basically unadoptable. You may find great personal reward in helping the less fortunate improve their lives rather than mindlessly opposing abortion regardless of the consequences.

So Entropy, getting back on topic. How do you feel about the "pro lifers" that kill doctors? Interestingly, they have all been religious fanatics. I do not think that normal, mainstream religious people or even so called "pro lifers" condone these murders, but I have seen no great outlash from the religious or pro life community against them that leads me to think that underneath the outer displayed disaproval there is an inner hidden sense of satisfaction?

 

[Entropy]

How do you know I don't do community service? You don't even know me, how can you just assume I'm some shmuck who is completely devoid of kindness. Because I believe its possible for someone to overcome harsh conditions and make something of themselves and grow up to lead happy lives. Because someone has had poor parenting they are worthy of sympathy and help. But if they choose to continue the abuse then they are not longer innoccent and its their fault, although the abuse they suffered may influenced them it did not force them to repeat the actions of there parents.

As a matter of fact I've done my share of community service. Perhaps not the same as you've stated but no less important. I use to help out at my local state park where my mom volunteered helping give trail rides. The man who runned the stables that gave the trail rides also lived in the park in a small shack. He was crippled from the waste down and had only one good hand due to motorcycle accident. I'd help out usually on the weekends just doing general labour he was unable to do, despite the fact I don't like horses. Unfortunately his health took a turn for the worst and he died of a heart failure. So after the stables were closed because no one else could run it. We did end up adopting one of the horses who had an accident and lost one of her eyes and therefore couldn't be sold.

So Entropy, getting back on topic. How do you feel about the "pro lifers" that kill doctors? Interestingly, they have all been religious fanatics. I do not think that normal, mainstream religious people or even so called "pro lifers" condone these murders, but I have seen no great outlash from the religious or pro life community against them that leads me to think that underneath the outer displayed disaproval there is an inner hidden sense of satisfaction?

They are murders. Treat them as any other criminal. Giving them the attention above any other murder whether it be from pro-lifers or from abortionists gives them what they want and that is to be heard, and therefore gives incentive for others to do the same. I believe if you ignore the fact why they did it and just look them up it like any other criminal it will make the other fanatics more hesitent to do the same.

 

[Evo]

How do you know I don't do community service? You don't even know me, how can you just assume I'm some shmuck who is completely devoid of kindness.

I wasn't referring to just doing community service, but gaining an understanding of victims of abuse, some of your comments make me think that you don't understand, like this statement

"But if they choose to continue the abuse then they are not longer innoccent and its their fault"

It's not that they choose to continue the abuse, especially in the case of children. It is very easy for someone on the outside to just say "they can leave any time, it's their own fault if they stay and put up with it". I have learned how wrong that is. The victims are not guilty. One of the biggest hurdles for these victims to overcome is their feeling that it *is* their fault. But we are straying off topic again.

They are murders. Treat them as any other criminal. Giving them the attention above any other murder whether it be from pro-lifers or from abortionists gives them what they want and that is to be heard, and therefore gives incentive for others to do the same. I believe if you ignore the fact why they did it and just look them up it like any other criminal it will make the other fanatics more hesitent to do the same.

The last pro life murderer, I can't remember his name, loved the publicity he was getting. He said that he would become a martyr. He was nuts. But when you deal with fanatics of this type, ignoring them may not be a detriment because they believe they are doing god's work.

 

[Entropy]

The last pro life murderer, I can't remember his name, loved the publicity he was getting. He said that he would become a martyr. He was nuts. But when you deal with fanatics of this type, ignoring them may not be a detriment because they believe they are doing god's work.

True, but what else can you really do about them? Besides posts guards around ever abortion clinic. Anyone have any other ideas about stopping them?

I wasn't referring to just doing community service, but gaining an understanding of victims of abuse, some of your comments make me think that you don't understand, like this statement

I'm very well away that it can be extremely hard and depressing having parents who deep down don't want you. In real life I don't really speak up against abortions, but if I had to stand somewhere it would be against them because deep down I believe that killing doesn't solve anything. But anyways I'm done talking about this because this is really just going around in circles.

 

[Evo]

In real life I don't really speak up against abortions, but if I had to stand somewhere it would be against them because deep down I believe that killing doesn't solve anything. But anyways I'm done talking about this because this is really just going around in circles.

I deeply respect your convictions, and I don't like the idea of abortion either, but I am not opposed to it in certain situations. Yes, it is an argument that can only go in circles.