Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[Gaspar]

Personally, I think abortion is a moral issue and I don't believe it's up to government to legislate morality one way or the other.  I definitely am not a personal advocate of abortion.

+1

However some people (on both sides) believe that it's government's job to help them shoulder the guilt they carry.

"Mommy Government says it's going to be ok."

[waterboy]

"hissing noise" That was brilliant!

I guess some would call it selective outrage, some could say you are reaching in your hypothetical comments.  The employees of tobacco and alcohol manufacturers are much further removed than they guy who sucks a fetus out of it's mother's womb.  There are laws in place which deal with mothers who ingest drugs or alcohol that harm a fetus, anyone else up the line is pretty much secondary or tertiary to injury to the fetus.  I guess we can reach as far as we want on alcohol and tobacco.  The government makes too much revenue off the two substances every year to ban them outright (okay, now I'm rambling).  They are obviously harmful and have caused millions and millions of deaths and maimed many fetuses as well.  Again, what causes a more traumatic picture in the mind of the average individual: someone operating a cigarette rolling machine or packaging line in a brewery or someone using their medical degree to terminate a fetus?

I could compare your comments along the lines of pro-lifers saying:  "How can you be so concerned about the rights of dung beetles, trees, and horned owls, yet indifferent to incipient, innocent human life?"

Not sparring with you, just trying to answer your question. 

A good effort but I still have qualms about motivation. Its easier to be incensed with the words and pics associated with abortion, yet the tragedy is spread over a longer period and affects more people with alcohol and tobacco. Yet no one shoots well educated tobacco executives. FWIW I agree with your summary. Keep the guv out of the process.

[mr.jaynes]

Using Gawd to rationalize murder? Despicable.

It absolutely is despicable, and even more disturbing is when some of them claim that God Himself is speaking to them, directing their movements. I have seen many of these people, spoken to many of the rank and file pro-lifers, and many the mainstream pro-lifers, I will concede are decent people. But it's that group of extremists that scare me the most.....

[Conan71]

It absolutely is despicable, and even more disturbing is when some of them claim that God Himself is speaking to them, directing their movements. I have seen many of these people, spoken to many of the rank and file pro-lifers, and many the mainstream pro-lifers, I will concede are decent people. But it's that group of extremists that scare me the most.....

Millions and millions of people throughout history have been killed in the name of God and "lesser" gods.  There's extremists in every group, yet we are told to be tolerant (and should be, IMO) to those more peaceable in religious, political, ethnic, or some other idealogical group.  Yet I see people in the pro-choice crowd attempting to link the entire pro-life movement to the actions of one lone nut-job.  Many of those I'm hearing this loudest from have preached a message of tolerance toward Islam because it's a very, very small percentage of Muslims who engage in terrorist activities toward the U.S. and toward Christians and Jews.

[Conan71]

A good effort but I still have qualms about motivation. Its easier to be incensed with the words and pics associated with abortion, yet the tragedy is spread over a longer period and affects more people with alcohol and tobacco. Yet no one shoots well educated tobacco executives. FWIW I agree with your summary. Keep the guv out of the process.

It's a drect act vs. a secondary act is my guess waterboy, or in other words a direct action of an individual vs. contributory negligence by individual(s).  Plus images of mutilated human fetuses is much more horrifying to the average individual than a "peaceful" stillbirth or someone born with their eyes too far apart, when I was growing up, that was simply referred to as "a birth defect". 

I would assume that most pro-lifers are concerned with the well-being of the fetus regardless of whether or not it's the mechanical or chemical termination of that life or substance abuse which can harm it.  I've never seen any data or commentary to suggest that's not a concern of pro-lifers nor have I read that it's a specific concern, I can only assume that's the case.  I think using alcohol or tobacco during pregnancy is as stupid as using abortion for birth control, but I'm not here to be the morality police for others conscience or common sense nor lack therof.

FWIW, I understand where you are coming from about shocking images.  I walked out of a pro-life presentation in the chapel at the Catholic high school I attended.  This wasn't a protest or demonstration by some radical weirdo, but rather someone from a prominent Catholic family in Tulsa who had made pro-choice philosophy his life's work (some of you will know who I am talking about).  The presentation included a slide show which showed mutilated fetuses and other bits of the abortion procedure.  It was pretty stomach-turning.  I simply told the priest who asked where I thought I was going that: "I'm not Catholic and I don't agree with the way this is being presented.  It's making me ill and I'm going to the student lounge to study."  He gave me a hasty verbal dismissal.  I tracked him down later and explained in no way was I making a statement, I simply felt there were better ways to get my attention than gruesome photos, and as a Protestant, I had no religious obligation to sit through the presentation.  He understood my point and there were no repercussions over it.

[mr.jaynes]

Millions and millions of people throughout history have been killed in the name of God and "lesser" gods.

Yet I see people in the pro-choice crowd attempting to link the entire pro-life movement to the actions of one lone nut-job.

You're absolutely right, there are extremists in every group. Thing is, they are the ones who, despite their minority status within their particular groups, are most visible, and the most violent. Same thing with Protestant Christians. The majority of them that are politically active tend to be fairly decent people, even though I may not agree with them wholeheartedly about the issues. But they don't resort to violence when they don't get their way on an issue. It's that small minority of them that do resort to it, which tends to make the news.

As for the pro-choice crowd, yes, there are extremists there, too. And they scare me just as much as the extremists on the pro-life side of the debate.

[rwarn17588]

Millions and millions of people throughout history have been killed in the name of God and "lesser" gods.  There's extremists in every group, yet we are told to be tolerant (and should be, IMO) to those more peaceable in religious, political, ethnic, or some other idealogical group.  Yet I see people in the pro-choice crowd attempting to link the entire pro-life movement to the actions of one lone nut-job.  Many of those I'm hearing this loudest from have preached a message of tolerance toward Islam because it's a very, very small percentage of Muslims who engage in terrorist activities toward the U.S. and toward Christians and Jews.

In other words, fundamentalists suck.

Got no problem with that.

[mr.jaynes]

In other words, fundamentalists suck.

Got no problem with that.

I wouldn't say that. It seems to be a stereotype that if someone is a protestant or a fundamentalist, that there is no innate intellectual curiosity at play, and this is simply not true. Yes, I've known a number of willfully ignorant protestants and fundamentalists in my day (and that would make for a heck of a good thread unto itself), but there were those others who stayed abreast of current events and history and arts and sciences that made a most favorable impression.

[cannon_fodder]

Sorry Jaynes, but a fundamentalist is necessarily hostile to and therefor not abreast of science.  If you believe a bronze aged manuscript is THE SOURCE of knowledge above and contrary to all else, then the notion of science is kind of out the window.  You can't see the four corners of the Earth, hares don't chew their cud, bats are not birds, the mustard seed isn't the smallest, unicorns and dragons do not exist, the Earth spins and moves around the Sun, the Earth isn't 5,000 years old, germs cause disease, muteness is not caused by the devil, women were not created from man's rib, Pi is not 3, and all animals on Earth wouldn't fit on Noah's boat, etc.    If you literally believe the King James version of the bible as the word of God, you either have to make wild stories to explain away the scientific flaws or simply abandon science.

Keep in mind I am talking about self proclaimed strict fundamentalists, every word is Gods and absolutely true.  Of course, when different books of the bible disagree on lineage and numbers it is hard to study the bible and honestly hold this view.

I am NOT arguing that religious people are not scientific or intelligent.  Just hard to argue that you are a science minded individual who abandons science when it differs from the Bible.

[mr.jaynes]

I suspect that the best middle ground to reach with them is, the Bible shows that things were created. But science merely shows how these creations things work, how they fuction, breaks it all down for us all the way down to the cellular level. I'm not the most religious man on the planet-not even close- and I'm not a fundamentalist, let alone a protestant. I have however reached commong ground with a few of them of the Southern Baptist variety: these guys at least read the newspapers and magazines devoted to current events, they watch TV, and are not isolated from the outside world. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but, there is no rancor or animosity. Now, certain fundamentalist pentecostal groups? Not so much....

[tim huntzinger]

So a man with untreated schizophrenia and personalized religious and political beliefs kills someone and it is because of Pentecostals? It sucks that this tragedy is drawing out such anti-religious bigotry!

[mr.jaynes]

So a man with untreated schizophrenia and personalized religious and political beliefs kills someone and it is because of Pentecostals? It sucks that this tragedy is drawing out such anti-religious bigotry!

I'm not saying it's due to Pentecostal Fundamentalists; that is a seperate issue unto itself. If the evidence supports that he did it, so be it. I will not indict an entire religion because of it. But, now that you mention it, if he does go to church or belongs to a fringe political sect, and that organization fosters that kind of sociopathic behavior, maybe we should take a closer look.

[Conan71]

So a man with untreated schizophrenia and personalized religious and political beliefs kills someone and it is because of Pentecostals? It sucks that this tragedy is drawing out such anti-religious bigotry!

Probably the most succinct conclusion in this thread, other than RW's "Fundamentalists suck".

[USRufnex]

The analysis of this news story is pathetic.  This is being spun out of control by nut-ball lefties with no news digestion skills like FOTD.  At this point, we know one man shot another, the victim was a controversial abortion doctor.  To this point, there does not seem to be a conspiracy and the pro-life groups are distancing themselves from the a-hole who did this.  It's also assumed at this point that Roeder shot Tiller because he was a controversial abortion doctor.  There's been nothing conclusive reported that this is the case.  For all we know at this point, Tiller could have been a former in-law, could have owed Roeder money, or could have been road rage.  Too often we mistake a reporter(s) personal inflection or assumptions as being fact.

[FOTD]

Anyone attend Church Sunday and get an earful about this issue? Highly doubtful. Not many posties attend church.