Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

[John_S1]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.

Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?[/quote]

Why are you leaving out that the baby is a human being given the right to life here in the USA.

Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.

[ephrem]

John S. wrote:Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.

…sigh, because it’s the woman, and only the woman, that gets to decide, within already established legal bounderies, what happens to the fetus; not you, not the father, not some asshole who wants to kill pregnant women, but the pregnant woman, and her alone…

[malonetd]

[quote]John S. wrote:
Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”.[/quote]

I’m about as pro-choice as anyone can get and even this hypocrisy bothers me.

[Makavali]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiller, R.I.T. (Rest in Torment).[/quote]

Why would you even say that?

[Makavali]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, let’s calm down on some of the rhetoric. The pro-life movement didn’t murder this guy, a single individual did. And, nobody should be celebrating this. [/quote]

Exactly.

[tom63]

My two cents, the guy who killed this man should get the maximal sentence. Secondly, this man was a reprehensible individual and I can’t say I’m losing any sleep over this.

[tedro]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Half a page of rubbish.
[/quote]

I do hope you support abortion right up until the moment that the baby is born. You know, to be ‘logically consistent’.

Actually, you should probably support murder until the age of 12 or so if you really want to be ‘logically consistent’, seeing as children under the age of 12 do tend to rely on others’ ‘benevolence’ for their existence.

[Aragorn]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, but like most of your “reasonings,” it’s incorrect. Respecting a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body and providing a lawful service which facilitates it is not a capital crime, but attempting to remove her human rights and making many worse off in the process (usually to appease a magic sky person) might be.[/quote]

Ok, firstly, the appeal to the pro-life position can be made completely unreligiously, so attack the position on it’s essential merits or lack of merits instead of using tangential ridicule of a NON-essential part of their position that is not shared by all to try and cast aspersions.

Secondly, let’s not turn this into another damned abortion ethics thread. Resurrect an old one if you want to continue ad nauseum.

[Aragorn]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, let’s calm down on some of the rhetoric. The pro-life movement didn’t murder this guy, a single individual did. And, nobody should be celebrating this. [/quote]

Thank you very much Sloth. This is true. I can’t lie–I don’t feel sorry for Tiller, I’m not losing any sleep over this. In fact, I’m not really thinking about it at all save when I read this thread. However I absolutely don’t want the murdering bastard to get away with any leniency for his crime. We have the rule of law for a reason. This is America, not some damned lawless failed state where Hobbesian rules or grudge killings hold sway.

Also I find blaming the entire pro-life movement for this murder–or using the murder to uniformly criticize all pro-life advocates–as juvenile malignancy at best, and at worst a statement of mental incapacity. I keep hoping, vainly it seems, for the discussion to be elevated above shit like that.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

pushharder wrote:You might just be surprised at how many in the pro-life movement feel EXACTLY the way I do.

No, I probably wouldn’t.

When and where did this “right” originate? If you say, “1973 Washington, D.C.”, then you are correct. It surely has no history of existing before then. If you disagree would you classify it as a natural right? If so, cite its history.

When and where do any rights originate? Fill in the blank with whatever you wish, and that’s your answer. But the right of a man to do as he wishes with his body would in no age need to be defended. Neither does the corresponding right of a woman need to be legislated into existence.

OK, we’ll have to agree to disagree here, I guess. But you cannot deny that at one time slavery was legal but still wrong. Can you?

I’m not sure why you’re arguing this, because you’re the one who wants to dictate to a woman what she may and may not do with her body, much like slave owners dictated what slaves were required to do with their bodies. Is that a bad analogy? Of course it is, but it’s even worse when you try to use it.

Whoa! Stop right there! This is really what this is all about. Agreed? “Whose status as a person is very debatable at this point.” It boils down to that. If you were to ever convince yourself that a viable baby in its third trimester (the kind of baby Tiller specialized in eliminating) was a true-blue person, you would concede it’s position as the real “royal flush” on the card table, right? Answer that for me.

Again, I have to respectfully question whether or not you’re paying attention. For some, the crux of the issue is when the fetus becomes a person, and subject to the whole set of human rights, but to me (and I think most pro-choice individuals) it’s much simpler. You cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not wish to. At that point, you are reducing her to a womb. It’s the treatment of women like they’re simply baby-producing machines that I object to. The right rants and raves until they’re blue in the face about the injustice of welfare, and how it’s wrong to make a person pay money to support another against their will. While at the same time, here we have them wanting to force a person to support another against their will in a much more direct, unjust way. They don’t want people telling them what to do with their money, but it’s OK to tell others what to do with their body?

I think I’ve addressed everything you have posted. Except for, “If the baby can find some other way to be born, he is perfectly free to avail himself of this opportunity.” Like I said, I prefer to leave that one just the way it is. Ninguna respuesta, amigo.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You STILL refuse to answer the question, what gives you the right to control another’s body against their will? That is THE question, and no amount of sophistry or obfuscation on your part will change that or make me forget about it.

[/quote]

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]John S. wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.

Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?

Why are you leaving out that the baby is a human being given the right to life here in the USA.

Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.[/quote]

You cannot control another person’s body against their will. Get over it.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan, one more point on the slavery comparison. When slavery was legal and even well after it was not, blacks were not considered to be “fully human.” Remind you of anything in particular?[/quote]

It reminds me of a specious argument you made a couple of points back, the inadequacies of which I’ve already addressed.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]tedro wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Half a page of rubbish.

I do hope you support abortion right up until the moment that the baby is born. You know, to be ‘logically consistent’.

Actually, you should probably support murder until the age of 12 or so if you really want to be ‘logically consistent’, seeing as children under the age of 12 do tend to rely on others’ ‘benevolence’ for their existence.[/quote]

Another right wing goon who can’t actually figure out a way to refute arguements he doesn’t like. What’s it like being so insecure about your opinions that you’re afraid to question them at all?

[Vegita]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
John S. wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.

Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?

Why are you leaving out that the baby is a human being given the right to life here in the USA.

Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.

You cannot control another person’s body against their will. Get over it.[/quote]

Oh really? So I can inject myself with as much heroine as I want and nobody is going to tell me I can’t do it? Oh I’m so relieved, I’m going to grab a bunch of it and run down to my local police station and start shooting up. I’m so glad you are here to tell me that we can do anything to our bodies we want to. Yay for you you’re so smart.

V

[Vegita]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tedro wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Half a page of rubbish.

I do hope you support abortion right up until the moment that the baby is born. You know, to be ‘logically consistent’.

Actually, you should probably support murder until the age of 12 or so if you really want to be ‘logically consistent’, seeing as children under the age of 12 do tend to rely on others’ ‘benevolence’ for their existence.

Another right wing goon who can’t actually figure out a way to refute arguements he doesn’t like. What’s it like being so insecure about your opinions that you’re afraid to question them at all?[/quote]

I can’t wait till you tell me how nobody can tell us what we can do to our bodies. This should be good when you advocate that Crack cocane and Heroine should be fully legal substances.

To your point about A woman being able to do to her body what she wants. Even if you believe that, since the fetus has separate DNA, it is not part of her body. It may be attached to it, but it isn’t “her” so Sure if she can figure out a way to remove the fetus and have it continue it’s development normally without killing it, then sure she may have the right to do that, she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

Actually, I know right now, there are women who will carry a couples child for them if the mother has a medical reason she cannot. The egg is fertalized in a petrie dish and inserted into the host mother. Now, are you going to tell me, that this host mother has the right to abort the baby at any time she sees fit? Do the DNA Parents have a say in it? Curiously waiting for your response.

V

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]Vegita wrote:Oh really? So I can inject myself with as much heroine as I want and nobody is going to tell me I can’t do it? Oh I’m so relieved, I’m going to grab a bunch of it and run down to my local police station and start shooting up. I’m so glad you are here to tell me that we can do anything to our bodies we want to. Yay for you you’re so smart.

V[/quote]

Like I said earlier, a thing’s legality does not necessarily reflect its legitimacy as a right. In my opinion, yes, you can buy heroin and use it as much as you want. Now the one is legal, and the other happens to be illegal, but the artificial distinction made by illogical laws does not affect my position one jot.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Vegita wrote:I can’t wait till you tell me how nobody can tell us what we can do to our bodies. This should be good when you advocate that Crack cocane and Heroine should be fully legal substances.

Well, wait no longer, because I just did.

To your point about A woman being able to do to her body what she wants. Even if you believe that, since the fetus has separate DNA, it is not part of her body. It may be attached to it, but it isn’t “her” so Sure if she can figure out a way to remove the fetus and have it continue it’s development normally without killing it, then sure she may have the right to do that, she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

Wrong again. Actually think about this before robotically dashing off an ill-considered response. Even if I were to grant you that the fetus is not a part of her body (since that’s pretty much like saying her arm isn’t a part of her body), it wouldn’t make any difference, because she is still required to support it and house it, su whether or not you think it’s part of her body, it still certainly requires the (not inconsiderable) use of her body, which she is entitled to grant or to deny.

she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

I can’t wait until you’re attacked and you kill the guy, and they send you to prison for the rest of your life for homicide, because “you do not have the right to KILL another human being, regardless the impact on your body.”

Actually, I know right now, there are women who will carry a couples child for them if the mother has a medical reason she cannot. The egg is fertalized in a petrie dish and inserted into the host mother. Now, are you going to tell me, that this host mother has the right to abort the baby at any time she sees fit? Do the DNA Parents have a say in it? Curiously waiting for your response.

It depends. Is there a contract involved? If so, then no; she has made a binding agreement to carry the child to term. If not, then yes. But there really should be a contract involved in that situtation.

[Vegita]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:I can’t wait till you tell me how nobody can tell us what we can do to our bodies. This should be good when you advocate that Crack cocane and Heroine should be fully legal substances.

Well, wait no longer, because I just did.

To your point about A woman being able to do to her body what she wants. Even if you believe that, since the fetus has separate DNA, it is not part of her body. It may be attached to it, but it isn’t “her” so Sure if she can figure out a way to remove the fetus and have it continue it’s development normally without killing it, then sure she may have the right to do that, she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

Wrong again. Actually think about this before robotically dashing off an ill-considered response. Even if I were to grant you that the fetus is not a part of her body (since that’s pretty much like saying her arm isn’t a part of her body), it wouldn’t make any difference, because she is still required to support it and house it, su whether or not you think it’s part of her body, it still certainly requires the (not inconsiderable) use of her body, which she is entitled to grant or to deny.

she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

I can’t wait until you’re attacked and you kill the guy, and they send you to prison for the rest of your life for homicide, because “you do not have the right to KILL another human being, regardless the impact on your body.”

Actually, I know right now, there are women who will carry a couples child for them if the mother has a medical reason she cannot. The egg is fertalized in a petrie dish and inserted into the host mother. Now, are you going to tell me, that this host mother has the right to abort the baby at any time she sees fit? Do the DNA Parents have a say in it? Curiously waiting for your response.

It depends. Is there a contract involved? If so, then no; she has made a binding agreement to carry the child to term. If not, then yes. But there really should be a contract involved in that situtation.

[/quote]

When A fetus starts to attack the mother I will say go ahead and abort it. Until that time, you need to look up that word Push has asked you to. Distinction. You need to realize a man attacking me is not innocent, and I have the right to defend my life and the life of others who cannot defend their own life. A fetus is about as innocent as you can get, even if you are a christian, a fetus isn’t even tagged with origional sin yet. Pure innocent at its best.

[Edit, your response was not there the first time regarding the last point.]

V

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

But it is still SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THE MOTHER. It’s HER body, not the fetus’s. It put that in bold because you seem to be having a hard time seeing it.