I don't doubt that anyone terrorist or not thinks they are doing the right thing - that is why the do it. I see a terrorist as those trying to drive fear into the masses. 911 was a strike to a country using the killing of many innocent civilians to get the masses attention. These Drs, while may have a little more fear, I'm sure know the risk because I'm sure they get threats to them almost daily. personally.
I'm in favor of that kind of education, but it doesn't preclude discussing the larger issue-- which is what your side seems to want to accomplish. Whenever somebody is riled, they examine their heart. Keeping the discussion clinical and political is what has allowed abortion to prosper.
After I said "no problem" which I meant every word of... you came back with this insult: "...I don't think this is fair to me or honest to yourself." which gave me no option to interpret your apology as nothing but superficial blabbery. You act so innocent but you completely undermined what may or may not have been a sincere apology in the first place. You seem to be upset that I interpreted your "disturbed person" as my being a "monster." They don't seem that far off so I'm not sure what you could really be objecting to. I may deal with the rest of you diatribe if I have time and energy later. I'm taking my babies to the pool for an evening swim soon.
One quick one that I can't resist: nothing is more offensive and lacking conscience than to proclaim to be against abortion but to be pro-Choice (under the current law which allows us to abort any child up to 13 weeks)?
California's Supreme Court has upheld the state's fetal murder law: The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.
This is an interesting point of law... If the mother wishes to terminate the pregnancy, the fetus is not a person. If somebody kills the mother, and the fetus in utero, the fetus is a person. Very blurry lines indeed.
That is exactly the why the anti-abortion groups worked so hard to pass these 'prenatal murder' laws; its a backdoor way to attack the logic behind abortion rights and it is very difficult for a lawmaker, even one in favor of a women's right to choose, to vote against an act for victims of violent crime. The entire movement made a really big, open plan of it, describing it plainly as a 'wedge' to attack and weaken Roe v. Wade back in the 80's and 90's when they worked hard with sympathetic lawmakers to introduce these laws.
Not that blurry...the law makes these kinds of distincitions frequently. If you try to jump off a the brooklyn bridge, you get sent to a mental hospital for observation (or possibly charged with a misdemeanor disorderly conduct or trespass or soemthing like that)........if you try to throw somebody off the bridge, you get charged with attempted murder.
In both cases, it is because the object of the action is a person. In the situation at hand, whether or not the object of the action is a person depends upon the identity of the actor.
Well, allow me to offend you and lack conscience then. I am against abortion and also pro-choice. So are a lot of other people. You act like these are mutually exclusive positions. I'm not pro-choice because I favor abortion; I'm pro-choice because I oppose jailing the women who make the difficult decision to terminate their pregnancies. I'm also against corporal punishment, the killing of animals for meat or sport or clothing, racist and homophobic and otherwise bigoted speech, and about a thousand other behaviors large and small about which I remain pro-choice because I don't think people should be jailed for doing these things. I hope you will live a long life but even if you do you will never see the change you want on this issue. Women will never again go to jail in this country for having an abortion and doctors will never again go to jail for performing them safely. But we can have a useful compromise that results in many, many LESS abortions. And Obama can be a friend in this just as Clinton was, by focusing hard on sex education, doing away with the failure of abstinence only programs and providing easy access to birth control. Bush opposed all of these things and so there were far more abortions during his terms than there were under Clinton's. What's more important to you? Putting women in jail or reducing abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies? We can all work together on the second. You're fighting a losing battle on the first.
It turns on individual identity because the law recognizes the power of the individual to choose in both contexts.
I can't believe I am about to do this. But. here goes. Bravo! Bravo! That is one awesome well-articulated post. I wish I could have said it half as well.
What about that guy who snuck into Bear Creek Park in Houston, cut through the fence and attacked that tame deer that had been living there for 7 or 8 years? Just wanted to point out that people can be jailed for the killing of animals for sport. In the good ole U.S. of A., you can kill just about as many deer, ducks, dove and pigs as you want, but shoot a dog or a cat and you're going away for a while. In China, you can eat dogs for breakfast.
That simply ignores the more basic question of the legal definition of a person. If an entity is a person in one instance, it would logically follow that they are a person for all other purposes. I understand what you are saying, the mother chooses to keep the pregnancy so the fetus is a person. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, the fetus is not a person. That simply seems a little intellectually dishonest and result determinative. If the fetus is not a person, then you cannot murder that which is not a person. Period.
People are getting upset because the op used christians, but we have seen these same christians hang people and blow churches up.
The goal is to reduce abortions whether through education or restriction. I don't have to have a preference because they are not mutually exclusive. They both will help to reduce the number of abortions. People follow their passion. If it is education, go to work there. If it is the law, go to work there. Would you work for or support laws that criminalize animal cruelty? I'm working on a law that criminalizes baby cruelty. Look at all the vitriol aimed at Michael Vick... I just can't in good conscience give up the fight for the lives of innocent children due to the "uphill" difficulty of the political fight. I don't at all see the impossibility that you do. If one can love the child enough so can the next and the next. What exactly are you choosing above love there Batman?
