|
Post by snowman on Jun 2, 2009 17:31:00 GMT -5
Fubar,
The suspected shooter is said to be mentally ill, so that is a separate case, but for pro-life fans, I think I can fill in the missing part for you here. Tiller is viewed as a mass murderer - killing however many babies. While no reasonable people are out there advocating the hunting of abortion practitioners, many people see this as a net gain, the greater good, the same way you might look at the execution of a Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. Its unfortunate, you wish there was another way, but you understand why someone would do it.
Reading this it may be more inflamitory than I had intended, but I'm not sure how else to present the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2009 17:57:30 GMT -5
I would counter that no reasonable people would view Tiller as a mass murderer. What he was doing was _legal_. No matter what else you think about abortion, or late-term abortion, this is an indisputable fact. That _unreasonable_ people thus came to view him as a mass murderer is exactly why Bill O'Reilly cannot wash his hands of this crime. You can't go on a show and repeatedly call someone "Tiller the baby killer", and worse, and expect no consequences. That's shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.
Oh, well. That's just what we've grown to expect and tolerate from Fox News and its ilk. No big deal. They can carry on calling Sotomayor a racist and Obama a fascist ... just part of the day's work.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jun 2, 2009 20:09:12 GMT -5
Oh, well. That's just what we've grown to expect and tolerate from Fox News and its ilk. No big deal. They can carry on calling Sotomayor a racist and Obama a fascist ... just part of the day's work. What I love is that they like to call him both a "fascist" and a "socialist" in the same breath. Not realizing that those are contradictory terms.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 2, 2009 21:37:28 GMT -5
In the general sense of the words, fascism and socialism can (and have proven they can) coexist quite nicely. But I agree that in the way that those terms are used in the USA -- as stand-in epithets for extreme Republicans and extreme Democrats -- they appear to be in opposition to each other.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 2, 2009 21:51:12 GMT -5
In the general sense of the words, fascism and socialism can (and have proven they can) coexist quite nicely. But I agree that in the way that those terms are used in the USA -- as stand-in epithets for extreme Republicans and extreme Democrats -- they appear to be in opposition to each other. They are both pretty far up on the "controlling government" scale. In practical terms they aren't very far apart.
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Jun 2, 2009 21:55:02 GMT -5
Fubar, The suspected shooter is said to be mentally ill, so that is a separate case, but for pro-life fans, I think I can fill in the missing part for you here. Tiller is viewed as a mass murderer - killing however many babies. While no reasonable people are out there advocating the hunting of abortion practitioners, many people see this as a net gain, the greater good, the same way you might look at the execution of a Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. Its unfortunate, you wish there was another way, but you understand why someone would do it. Reading this it may be more inflamitory than I had intended, but I'm not sure how else to present the point. Again, you just made the same argument that terrorists and their supporters use to justify their actions. That what they are doing is a net positive. Understanding someones insanity is different than endorsing it. The thought process expressed in Bill's post endorses it.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 3, 2009 2:32:33 GMT -5
I would counter that no reasonable people would view Tiller as a mass murderer. What he was doing was _legal_. No matter what else you think about abortion, or late-term abortion, this is an indisputable fact. First, has anyone disputed that its legal? Second, are you suggesting that anything that is legal is ok? Its legal not to tip your waitress, but it isn't right. Its legal to push all the buttons on the elevator and then get off, but it isn't right. In most states its legal to talk on your cell while driving, but in New York and California it isn't, so if you causing a 10 car pile up while dialing, its wrong in Long Beach but not in Chattanooga? Fubar, The suspected shooter is said to be mentally ill, so that is a separate case, but for pro-life fans, I think I can fill in the missing part for you here. Tiller is viewed as a mass murderer - killing however many babies. While no reasonable people are out there advocating the hunting of abortion practitioners, many people see this as a net gain, the greater good, the same way you might look at the execution of a Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. Its unfortunate, you wish there was another way, but you understand why someone would do it. Reading this it may be more inflamitory than I had intended, but I'm not sure how else to present the point. Again, you just made the same argument that terrorists and their supporters use to justify their actions. That what they are doing is a net positive. Understanding someones insanity is different than endorsing it. The thought process expressed in Bill's post endorses it. Terrorists act to inspire fear in large groups of people. The rationale for accepting this act is that it is punishment for the sins of an individual, and the prevention of further sins. This guy has more in common with Lorena Bobbitt than Osama bin Laden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2009 7:25:32 GMT -5
I would counter that no reasonable people would view Tiller as a mass murderer. What he was doing was _legal_. No matter what else you think about abortion, or late-term abortion, this is an indisputable fact. First, has anyone disputed that its legal? Second, are you suggesting that anything that is legal is ok? Its legal not to tip your waitress, but it isn't right. Its legal to push all the buttons on the elevator and then get off, but it isn't right. In most states its legal to talk on your cell while driving, but in New York and California it isn't, so if you causing a 10 car pile up while dialing, its wrong in Long Beach but not in Chattanooga? No, what I am suggesting is that if it is legal then 1) it is not mass murder and 2) there is no reasonable justification for murdering the doctor, in a church no less. As far as whether anything legal being OK goes, the solution to that is to work, peacefully, to change the law, not to murder people. That strikes me as just a little unreasonable, no matter what spin you put on it. No?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 3, 2009 8:52:41 GMT -5
This guy has more in common with Lorena Bobbitt than Osama bin Laden. No, this is terrorism. Osama also had a rationale why the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were not just random targets. McVeigh had a rationale that he was punishing the federal government for mass murder when he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The definition of terrorism is that it is violence designed to terrorize your opponents. The long string of attacks against abortion providers is a terrorist strategy to make people fear to do this work or to use their services. If it bothers you to use that word to describe it, you might want to figure out why.
|
|
|
Post by Barky on Jun 3, 2009 10:54:01 GMT -5
This guy has more in common with Lorena Bobbitt than Osama bin Laden. No, this is terrorism. Osama also had a rationale why the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were not just random targets. McVeigh had a rationale that he was punishing the federal government for mass murder when he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The definition of terrorism is that it is violence designed to terrorize your opponents. The long string of attacks against abortion providers is a terrorist strategy to make people fear to do this work or to use their services. If it bothers you to use that word to describe it, you might want to figure out why. Hear Hear!! My sentiments exactly as I read the posts trying to justify this cold-blooded killer's actions. It was terrorism. Pure and simple. This killer is no different or better than Osama and the 911 terrorists who also truly believed they were only reacting to a history of crimes committed (including mass murder) against their religion/beliefs/people and that there were totally justified in committing murder because it was God's will and for the greater good. This murderer definitely wanted to inspire fear in other abortion doctors. He would also murder them if he had the chance and, by example, encourages others to murder them. Trying in vain to separate this killer from other terrorists is just hollow.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 3, 2009 12:55:32 GMT -5
First, has anyone disputed that its legal? Second, are you suggesting that anything that is legal is ok? Its legal not to tip your waitress, but it isn't right. Its legal to push all the buttons on the elevator and then get off, but it isn't right. In most states its legal to talk on your cell while driving, but in New York and California it isn't, so if you causing a 10 car pile up while dialing, its wrong in Long Beach but not in Chattanooga? No, what I am suggesting is that if it is legal then 1) it is not mass murder and 2) there is no reasonable justification for murdering the doctor, in a church no less. As far as whether anything legal being OK goes, the solution to that is to work, peacefully, to change the law, not to murder people. That strikes me as just a little unreasonable, no matter what spin you put on it. No? Ruffda, first, I'll thank you for presenting an actual argument that I can follow. I think by the peaceful protests, letter writing campaigns and lobbying efforts are far more popular than any violent acts, so I think the pro-life movement gets that, and I call it pro-life to highlight the hypocracy of this particular act. Most people have something that they hold to be higher than the law, and in the case of religion, failure to act on those convictions has consequences (damnation). I'm not condoning it, but I understand it. Barky and Mike, I'm a little troubled by your expansion of the word terrorism. Using as you do makes me wonder, do you see the difference between Animal rights activists who throw paint on people in fur coats, and Osama bin Laden taking down the World Trade Center. Activism vs terrorism. The pro-life movement is an activist agenda using mostly civil disobedience, education, and advocacy, with isolated acts of violence, much like PETA, or gay right groups. If you don't see the difference I don't know what to tell ya.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 3, 2009 14:11:01 GMT -5
Barky and Mike, I'm a little troubled by your expansion of the word terrorism. Using as you do makes me wonder, do you see the difference between Animal rights activists who throw paint on people in fur coats, and Osama bin Laden taking down the World Trade Center. Activism vs terrorism. It's not an expansion. Terrorism is agenda-driven violence designed to instill fear into a population of people in order to further the agenda of the terrorist. This is the definition. Attacks on abortion clinics and abortion providers have long been recognized as terrorism. As for animal rights activists, throwing paint on people doesn't really pass the threshhold for violence. Typically one would not use the word for assaults that don't come up to the standard of felony crimes. But destructive raids on labs, arson, etc. certainly do. That's also terrorism. No one is saying that protest marches are terrorism. But agenda-driven murder certainly is.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 3, 2009 20:51:59 GMT -5
mmm Gee now I am a influence on Minnesota Gopher women...? , Not unless I help them learn to SERVE BETTER.. DEEP INSIDE JOKE. WEBSTER DICTIONARY... yawn zzzz. ANY DEFINITION IS in the eye of the beholder..or VICTOR. TERRORIST USING PLANES were no different than the FRENCH FREEDOM FIGHTERS FIGHTING GERMANY AFTER FRANCE HAD FORMALLY SURRENDERED. I see it as WAR...liberals see it as a separate act. They are NO different than tactics used by the VIET CONG against a superior OCCUPYING military FORCE. We consider the Viet Cong terrorist..they consider themselves..FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Now back to the abortion doc. There are ONLY 3 CLINICS IN AMERICA that do this type of abortion.. located in places where they can be defended by laws and friendly COURTS. The guy totally believed in what he was doing in KILLING THE doctor..using RELIGIOUS teachings that many here and else where totally disagree with. The law of GOD is above the LAW OF MAN..and HE was willing to suffer the pain of ultimate penalty. So was the Doctor... Man will judge The killer//GOD will judge both of them. I am not saying it was right...but sometimes TERROR is the only recourse. Against superior odds..it would be stupid to fight using the superiors set of RULES. For your info .. CIVIL rights had its armies..BOTH BLACK and WHITE.. BOTH KILLED. The unions used strong arm tactics to gain a FOOTHOLD using.. Violence. ECO NUTS do more than throw paint..Of course you liberals would never own up to it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2009 20:57:16 GMT -5
Murdering a doctor in his church is not the same as assassinating Hitler. You can see that, right? This was not an action of last resort against an oppressive ruler. This guy shot a defenseless man in church. Where are the superior odds in this scenario? Where is this the last recourse?
Would it be OK for the pro-choice proponents to select an anti-abortion figure -- Randall Terry say -- and gun him down? Because this is the right comparison. One could argue that doing so would make it less likely that people like Terry incite others to violent acts. How about somebody popping off Bill O'Reilly?
And, again, what religious teachings are you referring to? Show me ANY legitimate church that would condone this act.
You need to study the Civil Rights movement, too.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 4, 2009 0:51:24 GMT -5
And, again, what religious teachings are you referring to? Show me ANY legitimate church that would condone this act. Depends on what you define as "legitimate church". But you can bet anything you want that there are churches scattered all over this country that are thanking God that this murder happened. They just generally have learned to keep a low profile about it.
|
|