Anti-abortionist expects 'great reward'

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: If you listen to the *cough* Liberal *cough* News, they make it sound like there are abortion clinic shootings all the time.

Closing your eyes sure won't help making all of the others disappear.
An excerpt from this newspaper:

Since 1977, there have been 189 arsons, bombings and shootings on abortion clinics throughout the country.

[Skunk]

And you should be willing to accept the consequences, also. He knew the consequences when he pulled that trigger. Even if he didn't, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Ignorance of the law is an excuse in Britain (although you'd be hard pressed to prove that you didn't know that pre-meditated murder was against the law!)

The people have decided that abortion is legal (to whatever extent) and that the doctor was acting lawfully. Therefore our 'assassin' was unacting unlawfully in killing the doctor and should be punished in accordance with the law. But 'made to repent'?

You might manage to make him regret his action - but you would never convince him that his action was 'immoral'. Don't waste time on it - just serve the punishment and protect society.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Skunk: Ignorance of the law is an excuse in Britain

I don't think so.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: in the name of God or to avenge/save unborn lives... well it's sick, pure and simple.

Isn't seeking revenge a capitol sine too ? If so, then they are sinners aswell and the whole christianity thing falls to pieces.

[Donut]

Why was this murderer allowed to go on national television to make a statement?
Is 'old sparky' used as a euphemism for a lethal injection as well as the electric chair?
Surely this man will be going to hell not heaven. Or has God changed the rules. I'm fairly certain he didn't repent before he died.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

It is Ironic how he is pro-life but yet willing to execute someone who does not believe as he does in cold blood, now he gets to be executed as well.

That sounds pretty consistent with how christianity has functioned for the last 1000 years or so. Just ask the Aztecs, Africans, Native Americans, and anyone else who has been converted at the point of a sword. From the start it has been believe as we do or die, heretic.

As for the irony, well I believe Moiraine said it best when she said that these people arent pro-life as much as they are "Anti-Choice". They dont care about life as much as they care about removeing peoples right to chose if they have an abortion or not.

[ 09-04-2003, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by pritchke: It is Ironic how he is pro-life but yet willing to execute someone who does not believe as he does in cold blood, now he gets to be executed as well.

Many of the pro-life people are the same that are pro-death when it comes to capital punishment. They believe in "preserving of innocent life" but also in "vengeance".

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: As for the irony, well I believe Moiraine said it best when she said that these people arent pro-life as much as they are "Anti-Choice". They dont care about life as much as they care about removeing peoples right to chose if they have an abortion or not.

I don't think that's quite true. These people believe strongly (and fanatically) that (unborn) life has to be saved at any cost. Of course they are "anti-choice" but not because they consider "choice" itself a bad thing but because in their opinion there are clearly a right and a wrong choice with the abortion issue and they find it illogical to choose the wrong one.
Their main error is however that based on their opinion they decide to break the law (which is made for good reasons).
There's no use in arguing what "you would have done if you knew somebody was killing babies..."
I consider myself an opponent of abortion but I'm also a law abiding citizen. And I don't respect the law because I was told to but because I am aware of its importance in society. Even if I knew that somebody was killing babies and the law wasn't doing anything about it my only choice would be to seek a change in the law Because if it is the law then that means that our society (through the means of whatever electoral system we use) has decided that it be carried out like this.[/b]
And if I disagree with the decision of society I have only the possibilities to try to convince society of its wrongs or to leave it but NOT to act against it. I myself can do as much as I like: I can protest, strike, refuse military service,... as long as it stays the concern of only my person. I must however NOT attack anybody over my frustration with existing law.
The only valid excuse for such behaviour would be if laws were not made by society but by somebody (dictator, military group, monarch,...) who only controls society but does not represent it. In this case I have to be sure to obey the unwritten laws society probably would impose if they were in control themselves something which divides the "good revolutionary" from the "evil Civil War soldier".


P.S.: Puh... Start out with abortion issues and end up somewhere in political science.

[Skunk]

Even if I knew that somebody was killing babies and the law wasn't doing anything about it my only choice would be to seek a change in the law

That's very rational - unfortunately, most of us are not rational in the face of what we consider to be evil. We are still, at the very root of our existence, animals that have instincts both to preserve our own lives and those of whom we care about.

If a man has targeted my child for murder and the police are unable to prevent him (and I'm certain that he's going to do it because he has always carried his threats of the same nature to the end), I'd like to say that I would be 'rational' and try to change the law after the death of my kid - but in reality, I'd probably engage in my own 'pre-emptive strike' first. Nature would get the better of me in that scenario...

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I don't think that's quite true. These people believe strongly (and fanatically) that (unborn) life has to be saved at any cost. Of course they are "anti-choice" but not because they consider "choice" itself a bad thing but because in their opinion there are clearly a right and a wrong choice with the abortion issue and they find it illogical to choose the wrong one.

You do have a point, but all of the abortion murderers have another thing in common. That thing is that they are uniformy all christan and they all claim to be on a mision from "God". I havent heard of any Jews or Muslims going out and killing abortion doctors.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Skunk: If a man has targeted my child for murder and the police are unable to prevent him (and I'm certain that he's going to do it because he has always carried his threats of the same nature to the end), I'd like to say that I would be 'rational' and try to change the law after the death of my kid - but in reality, I'd probably engage in my own 'pre-emptive strike' first. Nature would get the better of me in that scenario...

Just to be clear on that theoretical discussion:
It would be that case if it was legal for him to murder your child which is not the case anywhere in the world. If it is not and the police is just too unfit to prevent him the common right for self-defense kicks in (however not the right for a pre-emptive strike). The point I was trying to make is that even if you don't like it if something is legal you have to let it slide. May that be people wearing Swastikas and brown uniforms (which is - thank god - illegal in my country) or may that be prostitution. If it's legal your only choice is to make it illegal and then let the law enforcement stop it or stop it yourself thereby aiding the law enforcement.