Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean to say that those who perform doctors should have to fear for their lives?
I know this is not your intent, but... Saving lives? Collateral damage? Pragmatic purpose to murder? Pragmatic? Murder. If abortion is murder, it's OK for me to murder you for murder.
Sure we could. I happen to think it's the best translation still though, so I would rather quote it than one I'm not fond of/familiar with/comfortable with.
Curious that there was an interregnum of violence that just happened to coincide with the 8 years W was in the WH. For whatever reason, a Dem president appears to really set these guys off. I think we can expect more over the next 8 years.
I think their viewpoint is that they are sacrificing one life in order to "theoretically" protect hundreds if not thousands of lives that that doctor will not abort. Yes, that is pragmatic not pretty. It's a numbers game.
no, I don't think doctors who perform abortions should have to fear for their life, I just think Comets Win chose a lousy way of stating it, given the nature of the practice. however...... I will say 2 things. 1. a doctor such as Tiller, who dedicates his entire practice to abortion, should understand that there are lunatic nuts out there, and, in the past some of them have targeted abortion clinics and him specifically. Whether anyone agrees with it or not, he should at least consider the possibilty of someone attacking him. 2. for a doctor that has clamied to have terminated over 60k pregnancies, I'm not exactly sympathatic towards the situation. I don't condone violence, I would rather this had not happened, I understand the man has a family. But it has happened. I'm not exactly weeping over here.
I'm only addressing what rhad brought up, but with those two also. The distinction being made of course (not by me but I'm imputing it to the radical pro-Life movement) is that this is a kind of grandiose notion of self-defense where they justify steppping in to kill the one who is intent on "killing" many innocent lives.
IDK, maybe it has something to do with the scripture that is used in the quote where God specifically says MAN'S BLOOD. Go figure.......
Actually the verse (Genesis 9:4) deals with eating meat that still has blood in it. It has nothing to do with human blood at all, unless you take the position that the Bible advocates cannibalism.
I think with all the frivolous lawsuits brought against him, his clinic being vandalized and picketed, and the web sites targeting him, not to mention the two gunshot wounds he previously suffered, he probably had a good idea that there were nuts out there.
You quoted someone who cited Genesis 9:4 as the basis for Christians to believe that having blood is the standard for life. Presumably this means that you take Genesis 9:4, which states that you are not to eat meat that still has blood in it, to be applicable to Christians. This leads me to two questions: 1) How can having blood be the standard for life when most organisms don't have blood? 2) If you cite Genesis 9:4 as a rationale for being against abortion, should you not also refrain from eating meat that has blood in it? As for your question to me, as an atheist I don't feel bound by biblical law. I hope you will answer my questions, as I have answered yours.
I would, except you are basing your argument off false premise. Richard Deem did not state that Genesis 9:14 is the basis of his theory. There are more aspects, including other scripture (Genesis 9:6) and others still, that go into his basis for believing where life begins. Isolating one scripture from a paragraph (that was pulled from a page of many pages) and calling it the basis of his theory is incorrect. as for Kosher foods. I'm not Jewish Orthodox.
