American Terroism or just plain condoned Murder?

[Accountable]

Abortionist Docter Killed in Church.

I'm Pro-Choice but I think we need to work harder to give women alternatives to abortion such as birth control and education. However, that being said, how is the person who shot this Dr, who was operating under the law, any different from muslims who feel passionate about their cause and kill because of their beliefs? I call it a form of domestic terrorism. Under the law there is no difference. If there is a reason to burn in Hell, this assasin surely qualifies imo. Who is condoning? Some(most?) of the prevalent anti-abortion groups, that's who.

Ready, set, let the rationalizing begin why he is a hero!!

A terrorist does terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

That doctor did terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

The guy that shot the doctor did a terrible thing for something he feels is more important than one human life.

A soldier does terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

Each of these people act on deeply held beliefs in the face of forces that oppose them. The only difference is legal semantics and whose side they are on. I just hope the guy that had the balls to shoot that doctor also has the balls to plead guilty to murder, rather than to cop some kind of plea bargain.

I do not advocate having an abortion but it is nobodys business but the two people involved in creating the fetus.

I wish to hell people would realize that and just let us move on to more important things.

Sure. Lots more important things than ending an innocent human's life.

As I originally said, I'm pro-choice in that I don't want the government jumping into the middle of the decision, but in my personal life I'm more pro-life in that I don't think you should be conceiving a child unless you mean to and then you should have it. I don't think in this day and age there is an adequate excuse for being careless sexually. But lots of people are.

:homo: AMEN! :clap

 

[dt3]

A terrorist does terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

That doctor did terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

The guy that shot the doctor did a terrible thing for something he feels is more important than one human life.

A soldier does terrible things for something he feels is more important than human life.

Each of these people act on deeply held beliefs in the face of forces that oppose them. The only difference is legal semantics and whose side they are on.

So...the only difference in our soldiers and terrorists is "legal semantics"?

Do I even have to say that I disagree, or when you made this post did you just assume everyone would disagree with you?

 

[All Else Failed]

a fetus isn't a baby

 

[Accountable]

So...the only difference in our soldiers and terrorists is "legal semantics"?

Do I even have to say that I disagree, or when you made this post did you just assume everyone would disagree with you?

Legal semantic and whose side they're on. The four have that one common thread - that they're willing to kill for something they believe in. That's all. I'm not saying the terrorist is right or honorable or worthy of anything more than contempt. I'm simply pointing out the one common thread.

 

[Accountable]

a fetus isn't a baby

But a fetus is homo sapiens - a human being.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

That I agree with you 100% on.

EDIT: Although you didn't really specify in your original post, so it sounds like you put all pro-lifers in the same group. But thanks for the clarification nonetheless.

Nope that just means you assumed that I put them all in the same group, because I didn't specify anything.

 

[Minor Axis]

But a fetus is homo sapiens - a human being.

Historically unborn babies have no rights under the law, especially non-viable fetuses, the mother's rights over ride.

 

[Peter Parka]

Pro lifers killing someone, oh the irony!

By the way, I'm pretty much a pro lifer. I also find it strange that people who are against killing murderers seem to generally be for killing innocent babies. (I'm againt the death penalty too, by the way, at least I'm not a hypocrite)

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Pro lifers killing someone, oh the irony!

By the way, I'm pretty much a pro lifer. I also find it strange that people who are against killing murderers seem to generally be for killing innocent babies. (I'm againt the death penalty too, by the way, at least I'm not a hypocrite)

lol omg welcome back :willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

I agree with you 100%

Did you see how much trouble I got in while you were gone daddy?? This is why you should leave again :nod:

 

[Minor Axis]

So...the only difference in our soldiers and terrorists is "legal semantics"?

Do I even have to say that I disagree, or when you made this post did you just assume everyone would disagree with you?

There is an incredible amount of perspective that determines if by your actions you are a hero or a terrorist. It is an outstanding comparison to discuss. If your people feel occupied and oppressed, blowing up the enemy would make you a hero as there are no innocent enemy. What does wiping out a wedding party with a cruise missile qualify the perpetrators as?

Yeah, Pete, good to see you back!

 

[Goat Whisperer]

If you do anything illegal, it's illegal. We should never be allowed to break laws no matter what. Our laws and freedoms are more important than anything else.

 

[Peter Parka]

If you do anything illegal, it's illegal. We should never be allowed to break laws no matter what. Our laws and freedoms are more important than anything else.

It was illegal to have homosexual relations with another man in my country, 50 years ago. Was that right then? How about today - A woman can get executed in some countries for being raped. Does that make it right because it's the law?

 

[Accountable]

Historically unborn babies have no rights under the law, especially non-viable fetuses, the mother's rights over ride.

So? They're still human. Historically lots of different parts of society had no rights under the law. Law is not right or good simply because it is law. Law is only law. When we find flaws, we should fix them.

In the past, any flawed laws we saw were overhauled because such laws would cause us to pause, and redraw the clause.

*sorry, couldn't resist*

 

[Goat Whisperer]

It was illegal to have homosexual relations with another man in my country, 50 years ago. Was that right then? How about today - A woman can get executed in some countries for being raped. Does that make it right because it's the law?

No. I said we shouldn't break the law in our non-third world countries. We can protest it (peacefully) we can petition against it--but we should never break it.

As far as other countries are concerned---well that's completely different.

 

[Minor Axis]

If you do anything illegal, it's illegal. We should never be allowed to break laws no matter what. Our laws and freedoms are more important than anything else.

Adding to Peter's comment, doesn't it depend on if you consider a law to be just or unjust? And how many people share your feelings?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Adding to Peter's comment, doesn't it depend on if you consider a law to be just or unjust? And how many people share your feelings?

No. It leads to a slippery slope to Majority Ruling being over everything else.

 

[Accountable]

The bi-headed blonde is right. If a law is wrong, change it ... and change it within the legal framework. If one feels a strong enough motivation to break a law, one should also be just as willing to pay the consequences.

 

[Peter Parka]

Was Ghandi wrong?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Was Ghandi wrong?

no, but then again that was almost 100 years ago

In the HERE and the NOW breaking laws is wrong, period.

 

[Peter Parka]

no, but then again that was almost 100 years ago

In the HERE and the NOW breaking laws is wrong, period.

About 60-70 years actually. What makes you think that 60 -70 years from now people wont look back on certain law breakers today in the same way as Ghandi?
If no one ever broke laws, we wouldn't progress as a society. If people hadn't broke laws 10, 20, 50 , 100 years ago we would still be under laws that you would find abhorant.