# "I am a warrior for the babies"



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

That sounds a lot like some recent comments here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/robert-dear-yells-warrior-babies-court-article-1.2460570



> Robert Lewis Dear yells, âI am a warrior for the babiesâ during court appearance for Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting
> New York Daily News Â· 13 minutes ago


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nothing to see here... move along...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That sounds a lot like some recent comments here:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/robert-dear-yells-warrior-babies-court-article-1.2460570



But but but he was going to the bank and got confused! It wasn't about "baby parts" at all!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Nothing to see here... move along...


Why? Don't like home grown Christian terrorists?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Why? Don't like home grown Christian terrorists?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

No... I tire of your [collective] constant attacks where you trot out the strawman to try to smear all anti abortion supporters so that by association you make them "look bad". It is becoming quite childish when your [collective] enthusiasm is brought out for all to see...

It is funny to watch your antics, one trots out the "anti-abortion evil person" then, right in line, another stamps the "Christian" onto your objects of hate.

You may return to your regularly scheduled attacks...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> No... I tire of your [collective] constant attacks where you trot out the strawman to try to smear all anti abortion supporters so that by association you make them "look bad". It is becoming quite childish when your [collective] enthusiasm is brought out for all to see...
> 
> It is funny to watch your antics, one trots out the "anti-abortion evil person" then, right in line, another stamps the "Christian" onto your objects of hate.
> 
> You may return to your regularly scheduled attacks...


So because someone pointed out that he killed because he is pro life, every anti abortiinist is being attacked. Seems like you are over reaching.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Nothing to see here... move along...


Do you have something against reality, or are you implying the story is false?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

A straw man is an argument intentionally set up to be defeated. Pretty sure that isn't what the OP was. Pretty sure nothing Shine accuses the OP of is accurate. It's information related to a debate that took place here, one side didn't want to acknowledge the truth, so now it's being demonstrated. This sort of demonstration has been attempted over and over by people on Shine's side of political spectrum on this site (even when they were wrong), and yet for some reason this is suddenly a problem?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> No... I tire of your [collective] constant attacks where you trot out the strawman to try to smear all anti abortion supporters so that by association you make them "look bad". It is becoming quite childish when your [collective] enthusiasm is brought out for all to see...
> 
> It is funny to watch your antics, one trots out the "anti-abortion evil person" then, right in line, another stamps the "Christian" onto your objects of hate.
> 
> You may return to your regularly scheduled attacks...


Again, do you have anything that *refutes* what I posted, or are you just trying to shut down another thread by complaining about perceived "attacks"?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Well I'm sure the loved ones of the people killed would just be jubilant to know that Dear's sick mind fixated on "babies" after all and your point was proved. 

I mean really are there any human beings here or just political activists?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Well I'm sure the loved ones of the people killed would just be jubilant to know that Dear's sick mind fixated on "babies" after all and your point was proved.
> 
> I mean really are there any human beings here or just political activists?


You're seriously pulling the compassion card on _this_ thread? SMH

We at least waited until the bodies were counted, right? That's more than I can say for some there... Where were your posts then?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Well I'm sure the loved ones of the people killed would just be jubilant to know that Dear's sick mind fixated on "babies" after all and your point was proved.
> 
> I mean really are there any human beings here or just political activists?


Now we don't care about the people killed because we are discussing the truth. I guess you won't be discussing any terrorism then.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Well I'm sure the loved ones of the people killed would just be jubilant to know that Dear's sick mind fixated on "babies" after all and your point was proved.
> 
> I mean really are there any human beings here or just political activists?


It's not "my point"
It's a news report containing actual facts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Robert Lewis Dear yells, âI am a warrior for the babiesâ during court appearance


Yeah, that's going to impress the judge.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

He is nothing more than any other extremist terrorist attempting to instill fear in the general public and should be treated as such by the judge.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Wouldn't you love to be his poor court appointed defense lawyer? I don't know if his goal is an insanity plea or what. His claim that there would be no trial is a little odd.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Wouldn't you love to be his poor court appointed defense lawyer? I don't know if *his goal is an insanity plea* or what. His claim that there would be no trial is a little odd.


I suspect he is a little insane based on his ramblings, but I don't believe he doesn't know right from wrong.

He wants to turn it into a discussion about "killing babies for parts" as is often done here to steer the topic away from just the facts


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

As I have said on numerous occasions, you can't successfully fight one form of barbarism by using another form of barbarism. Dear should feel the full weight of justice fall on his head.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Martyrdom has always been prized by certain sects of Christianity. Maybe he's just the latest martyr and saint.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Here's what I find interesting.....

The movie theater shooter (CO) was C-L-E-A-R-L-Y medicated when he appeared in court.....No more 'crazy far and away stares', no more 'crazy outbursts'.

Dear, C-L-E-A-R-L-Y has not been medicated.

Can a prisoner 'refuse' meds? 
When someone is having or on the verge of a mental break, can they still refuse medical attention? 
Or does the 'state' take over and medicate like it or not?

He committed murder. He needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other murderer out there. 
I make no excuses for this man.

Why did he only shoot 2-3 people?
Did he run out of ammo? 
Did he still have ammo when he was arrested?
Did he have multiple guns, with multiple clips / ammo to reload?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Martyrdom has always been prized by certain sects of Christianity. Maybe he's just the latest martyr and saint.


 It is my understanding that the cop he killed was an evangelical and anti-abortion. No, Dear is no saint, he is a barbarian.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> It is my understanding that the cop he killed was an evangelical and anti-abortion. No, Dear is no saint, he is a barbarian.


But if one has the obligation, and even the right, to kill in defense of another why doesn't Dear, or even you, have the same right to kill to protect those unborn lives you claim? Would you not shoot to kill if someone was holding a scalpel to a three year olds throat?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Sick, sick, sick...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Or just dedicated to the cause of protecting the unborn and willing to put his own life on the line to do so. If he saved even one unborn life wasn't his taking of others and and their rights enough justification?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> But if one has the obligation, and even the right, to kill in defense of another why doesn't Dear, or even you, have the same right to kill to protect those unborn lives you claim? Would you not shoot to kill if someone was holding a scalpel to a three year olds throat?



As the barbaric act of abortion is currently legal, the legal way to stop it doesn't include deadly force, as opposed to the 3 year old with a scalpel to her throat.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> As the barbaric act of abortion, is currently legal, the legal way to stop it doesn't include deadly force, as opposed to the 3 year old with a scalpel to her throat.


So legal trumps moral? I question your dedication to the cause. Joan burned at the stake because she didn't follow the law.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> So legal trumps moral? I question your dedication to the cause. Joan burned at the stake because she didn't follow the law.


*I find is concerning that you are promoting / encouraging, endorsing 'murder'.*

We are a country of laws, like them or not.
Don't like the law? 
We have a process where we vote folks in that will change that law.
But the United States of America is a country of laws.

Don't like following laws?
Leave.

*You're advocating murder, and I am sure that there are FCC laws that say you could be prosecuted for such language........*

If you want to 'kill a thread' because you do not like the direction it is headed, there are other ways to get that done, w/o breaking FCC laws.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> So legal trumps moral? I question your dedication to the cause. Joan burned at the stake because she didn't follow the law.


 There are legal ways to save the unborn without breaking current law. As long as that is true, that must be the avenue used. Dear did nothing to help the cause, I assure you. (hence the creation of this particular thread)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I find is concerning that you are promoting / encouraging, endorsing 'murder'.
> 
> We are a country of laws, like them or not.
> Don't like the law?
> ...


Feel free to call the authorities and file any complaint you wish. I've not advocated killing anyone. I have asked why some of you wouldn't be willing to kill to defend one life but you would for another. What are you willing to sacrifice in defense of those lives you claim beyond a little keyboard time? Who is truly righteous- he who talks or he who acts?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Feel free to call the authorities and file any complaint you wish. I've not advocated killing anyone. I have asked why some of you wouldn't be willing to kill to defend one life but you would for another. What are you willing to sacrifice in defense of those lives you claim beyond a little keyboard time? Who is truly righteous- he who talks or he who acts?


 There is more to action than randomly killing innocent bystanders. There is money donated to pay for medical care for expectant mothers, there is counseling given to those who are thinking of abortion. There is being a foster parent, there is adoption, there is charity work, there is lobbying lawmakers, etc.. All of which will do more for the cause than random acts of violence.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

And the only ones that don't have laws protecting them are the unborn babies.
We've been having a lot of threads on her about abortion, and we have some so gleefully supporting the killing of babies.
Is there anything in this world we live in that is as beautiful as looking at a newborn laying in your arms?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Martyrdom has always been prized by certain sects of Christianity. Maybe he's just the latest martyr and saint.


Spot. On.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

scooter said:


> And the only ones that don't have laws protecting them are the unborn babies.


That, right there.

That's why I'm a pro-life advocate. I don't have to kill anybody to be an advocate and get laws changed.

But, in all honesty, I can see how the practice of selling baby parts is so abhorrent that it could send some, whose mental capacity is already shaky, over the edge. It is _that_ repulsive.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> There is more to action than randomly killing innocent bystanders. There is money donated to pay for medical care for expectant mothers, there is counseling given to those who are thinking of abortion. There is being a foster parent, there is adoption, there is charity work, there is lobbying lawmakers, etc.. All of which will do more for the cause than random acts of violence.


And I agree with most of that. This wasn't a random act of violence. It was a directed attack on a place and group committing what this man and many here have deemed to be murder. Would you not kill to prevent murder? Personally I wish no abortion ever occurred. But I know that if I thought my actions would save a life the legality of my actions would be far down the list of why I did or didn't act. Would you be willing to go to jail for stepping between a doctor and woman?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And I agree with most of that. This wasn't a random act of violence. It was a directed attack on a place and group committing what this man and many here have deemed to be murder. Would you not kill to prevent murder? Personally I wish no abortion ever occurred. But I know that if I thought my actions would save a life the legality of my actions would be far down the list of why I did or didn't act. Would you be willing to go to jail for stepping between a doctor and woman?


But killing to stop *an *abortion won't stop future abortions from being legal. The law has to be changed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Martyrdom has always been prized by certain sects of Christianity. Maybe he's just the latest martyr and saint.


I truly am offended by that. For Heaven's sake, go read something about martyrs & saints. Sheesh.

And as to the post about who's calling whom a terrorist, go read some definitions there too.

There's a little something about monsters who murder innocents IN THE NAME OF a theocratic ideology that is instructing them to do so. Doesn't anyone who's non-conserve get this??? If not, why not?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> But killing to stop *an *abortion won't stop future abortions from being legal. The law has to be changed.


It'll stop that abortion and any further abortions by that "murdering" doctor. Killing a murderer won't stop murders but it will keep that murderer from offending again. A common mantra by death penalty supporters. And most studies show that outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortions or even significantly decrease them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Here's what I find interesting.....
> 
> The movie theater shooter (CO) was C-L-E-A-R-L-Y medicated when he appeared in court.....No more 'crazy far and away stares', no more 'crazy outbursts'.
> 
> ...


I disagree. IMHO he was ACTING.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And I agree with most of that. This wasn't a random act of violence. It was a directed attack on a place and group committing what this man and many here have deemed to be murder. Would you not kill to prevent murder? Personally I wish no abortion ever occurred. But I know that if I thought my actions would save a life the legality of my actions would be far down the list of why I did or didn't act. Would you be willing to go to jail for stepping between a doctor and woman?


 To use your 3 YO child, with a knife to her throat analogy. If it were legal to do that to a 3 year old and it was being done 100's of thousands of times a year, with a large subset of society that supported the action, it would do no good, for the millions, to kill to save one. The killing would steel the resolve of the supporters of the practice and paint anyone against it as a crazy. 

As for stepping between a woman and the "doctor", I doubt it would do any good, but, if it did, I would do it without hesitation.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Don't like following laws?
> Leave.



Or you can work with the system of voting and lobbying your representative to change laws.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> It'll stop that abortion and any further abortions by that "murdering" doctor. Killing a murderer won't stop murders but it will keep that murderer from offending again. A common mantra by death penalty supporters. And most studies show that outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortions or even significantly decrease them.


 But, abortion is currently legal, so, another "doctor" would step up and continue the killing. It would not stop any abortions and it would take the offender out of the fight.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> To use your 3 YO child, with a knife to her throat analogy. If it were legal to do that to a 3 year old and it was being done 100's of thousands of times a year, with a large subset of society that supported the action, it would do no good, for the millions, to kill to save one. The killing would steel the resolve of the supporters of the practice and paint anyone against it as a crazy.
> 
> As for stepping between a woman and the "doctor", I doubt it would do any good, but, if it did, I would do it without hesitation.


So, because it would do no good for the masses you wouldn't act to save the one even if your conscience and morality deemed that one worth saving?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> But, abortion is currently legal, so, another "doctor" would step up and continue the killing. It would not stop any abortions and it would take the offender out of the fight.


What fight? The war of words? The offender can still speak. Dear hasn't been silenced. In fact his words will gain more prominence. Had he said the same things he said yesterday before he acted out would anyone have heard him? Would we be discussing those words today?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Martyrdom has always been prized by certain sects of Christianity. Maybe he's just the latest martyr and saint.


Martyrdom has always been priced by certain sects of Islam. Maybe Farook and his wife are just the latest martyr's and saints?

Based upon recent events and evidence, can I get a "Spot. On"???


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> I disagree. IMHO he was ACTING.


You think Dear is "faking" being insane??
Tell me why.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> So, because it would do no good for the masses you wouldn't act to save the one even if your conscience and morality deemed that one worth saving?


 Not that it would do no good, but, it would tend to make things worse. If I can save 10 later, by not killing, rather than save one by killing, logic would dictate that saving the 10 is better.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> What fight? The war of words? The offender can still speak. Dear hasn't been silenced. In fact his words will gain more prominence. Had he said the same things he said yesterday before he acted out would anyone have heard him? Would we be discussing those words today?


 Are the rantings of a crazy man likely to hold much weight with those in a position to reduce abortions?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Not that it would do no good, but, it would tend to make things worse. If I can save 10 later, by not killing, rather than save one by killing, logic would dictate that saving the 10 is better.


Not to the one. Who can predict future events. What if that one is the only one that will be saved?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Are the rantings of a crazy man likely to hold much weight with those in a position to reduce abortions?


Who's to say he's any crazier than any others who believe humanity begins at conception and that planned parenthood sold baby parts. It seems like there are a lot of crazy people, to me. Maybe he's the only sane one willing to step up and sacrifice himself for these beliefs and these lives he believes in. Maybe he believes his reward is yet to come for fighting the righteous battle. Crazy? Or devout?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Not to the one. Who can predict future events. What if that one is the only one that will be saved?


 
By that logic, we should never save seeds to plant for next years crop, or, we should just eat all of our breeding stock.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Who's to say he's any crazier than any others who believe humanity begins at conception and that planned parenthood sold baby parts. It seems like there are a lot of crazy people, to me. Maybe he's the only sane one willing to step up and sacrifice himself for these beliefs and these lives he believes in. Maybe he believes his reward is yet to come for fighting the righteous battle. Crazy? Or devout?


 Personally, I see him as crazy. I believe he is doing far more harm to the cause than good. If you think him sane, well, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Personally, I see him as crazy. I believe he is doing far more harm to the cause than good. If you think him sane, well, I don't know what to tell you.


So it's crazy to believe abortion is wrong? It's crazy to believe planned parenthood sold baby parts? It's crazy to believe your god will reward you for saving innocent lives? Lots of crazy out there.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> So it's crazy to believe abortion is wrong? It's crazy to believe planned parenthood sold baby parts? It's crazy to believe your god will reward you for saving innocent lives? Lots of crazy out there.


No, it is crazy to shoot innocent bystanders. This is not a difficult concept.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> No, it is crazy to shoot innocent bystanders. This is not a difficult concept.


If you're complicent in "murder" as many believe abortion is by working at a planned parenthood clinic which provides them are you truly innocent? If you kill a police officer whose trying to stop you from doing your god's work are you really crazy? What's the difference between crazy and devout?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, do you have anything that *refutes* what I posted, or are you just trying to shut down another thread by complaining about perceived "attacks"?


Do you really have issues understanding what I typed? It is pretty clear. This is just another of your regular attacks on the Anti-Abortion people and someone took the opportunity to add in Christians. My one and only point. When this thread is done, one of your crew will trot out another sicko that you can paste your labels on so that you can re-attack those issues over and over. Simple?

It can be proven by noticing the topic that your crew uses and the regularity of the attacks.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> If you're complicent in "murder" as many believe abortion is by working at a planned parenthood clinic which provides them are you truly innocent? If you kill a police officer whose trying to stop you from doing your god's work are you really crazy? What's the difference between crazy and devout?


In a civilized society, you work within the law to affect change, or, perhaps using some form of civil disobedience. My God has never told me to shoot anyone.

Being crazy is intentionally doing something that will do great harm to the cause you purport to support. Being devout is holding the course, for decades, if necessary, working for the day when you are successful.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> A straw man is an argument intentionally set up to be defeated. Pretty sure that isn't what the OP was. Pretty sure nothing Shine accuses the OP of is accurate. It's information related to a debate that took place here, one side didn't want to acknowledge the truth, so now it's being demonstrated. This sort of demonstration has been attempted over and over by people on Shine's side of political spectrum on this site (even when they were wrong), and yet for some reason this is suddenly a problem?


In this case, the strawman is the evil "Anti-abortionist" and the "Christian". They will burn this effigy and drag its body through the streets as long as they can....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> In a civilized society, you work within the law to affect change, or, perhaps using some form of civil disobedience. My God has never told me to shoot anyone.
> 
> Being crazy is intentionally doing something that will do great harm to the cause you purport to support. Being devout is holding the course, for decades, if necessary, working for the day when you are successful.


I'm glad your god has never told you to shoot others. It seems he had a different conversation. The cause he supports is stopping abortion. For at least that day he did just that. Crazy or temporarily effective? By your definition almost all acts of terrorism must be done by crazy people.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> By your definition almost all acts of terrorism must be done by crazy people.


Crazy or absolutely desperate.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I'm glad your god has never told you to shoot others. It seems he had a different conversation. The cause he supports is stopping abortion. For at least that day he did just that. Crazy or temporarily effective? By your definition almost all acts of terrorism must be done by crazy people.


 It makes little difference if the unborn baby is killed today or killed tomorrow, There is a giant difference between stopping abortion and delaying abortion. A sane person would see that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Shine said:


> Do you really have issues understanding what I typed? It is pretty clear. This is just another of your regular attacks on the Anti-Abortion people and someone took the opportunity to add in Christians. My one and only point. When this thread is done, one of your crew will trot out another sicko that you can paste your labels on so that you can re-attack those issues over and over. Simple?
> 
> It can be proven by noticing the topic that your crew uses and the regularity of the attacks.


Half this country has moral pneumonia.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Half this country has moral pneumonia.


And the other half is incapable of minding it's own business...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And the other half is incapable of minding it's own business...


Was that a sneeze? Gesundheit..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> It makes little difference if the unborn baby is killed today or killed tomorrow, There is a giant difference between stopping abortion and delaying abortion. A sane person would see that.


If it makes little difference why the insistence on mandatory waits? "Crazy or desperate?" It's crazy to wiilingly jump from a bridge to the rapids below. Desperation might drive you to it if the train is bearing down on you. Perhaps Dear saw the train. It just seems, to me, that it's much easier for many to label as crazy those who have even a slight affinity to them and evil those who don't.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> If it makes little difference why the insistence on mandatory waits? "Crazy or desperate?" It's crazy to wiilingly jump from a bridge to the rapids below. Desperation might drive you to it if the train is bearing down on you. Perhaps Dear saw the train. *It just seems, to me, that it's much easier for many to label as crazy those who have even a slight affinity to them and evil those who don't*.


 
The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive.


Many treat them as such. Had Dear used different words to justify his actions he would just be an extremist. As it is, he's crazy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Many treat them as such. Had Dear used different words to justify his actions he would just be an extremist. As it is, he's crazy.


could be both..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I am seeing a new venue being added to their attacks upon those that are against abortion or that state that they are "Protectors" of the unborn in that our credibility is being questioned with the premise of "If you believe as you do, why aren't you going forth and killing those that are doing the abortions? If you aren't then you must not truly believe what you say you do...", am I reading this correctly?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Shine said:


> I am seeing a new venue being added to their attacks upon those that are against abortion or that state that they are "Protectors" of the unborn in that our credibility is being questioned with the premise of "If you believe as you do, why aren't you going forth and killing those that are doing the abortions? If you aren't then you must not truly believe what you say you do...", am I reading this correctly?


 
Yep, it is a feeble attempt to paint with a broad brush. It would be the same as equating radical Animal Rights Terrorists with those who run the local animal shelter.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Glad some have some sense..

Oh, I know it is just a tactic of the feeble minded (broad brush thing), but it is refreshing to see it called out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For me it's a matter of seeing where individuals draw their own moral lines and why. I probably have a better understanding and more grudging respect for someone willing to risk their all for what they believe than I do for those who would let others fight their battles and allow gross injustice to continue to occur in the hopes that some day things will get better.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> For me it's a matter of seeing where individuals draw their own moral lines and why. I probably have a better understanding and more grudging respect for someone willing to risk their all for what they believe than I do for those who would let others fight their battles and allow gross injustice to continue to occur in the hopes that some day things will get better.


 
It is simply a matter of risk/reward. Giving my life or freedom in a way that will change nothing, or, make things worse, is kinda crazy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> It is simply a matter of risk/reward. Giving my life or freedom in a way that will change nothing, or, make things worse, is kinda crazy.


Not to mention we are a nation supposedly governed by law.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Not to mention we are a nation supposedly governed by law.


 That too.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> For me it's a matter of seeing where individuals draw their own moral lines and why. I probably have a better understanding and more grudging respect for someone willing to risk their all for what they believe than I do for those who would let others fight their battles and allow gross injustice to continue to occur in the hopes that some day things will get better.


Let me get this straight.

You are pro abortion.

You are in favor of someone killing, and being killed, to further your political agenda.

They have a word for that. It starts with T.

I assume those that "liked" your post are of similar mind. That does explain a lot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> There's a little something about monsters who murder innocents IN THE NAME OF a theocratic ideology that is instructing them to do so.


Seems that you're trying to say something, but stop short of saying it. What is the "little something" you refer to?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You are in favor of someone killing, and being killed, to further your political agenda.


There is no political agenda. The constitutional determination has been made. Roe v Wade determined that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester. That question is settled, and Roe V Wade will never be heard again.

So, with respect to abortion the left has no political cause to pursue. But the right still holds out hope that somehow they can influence the system to end abortion. There is no progress being made on ending abortion so the right is frustrated. Like most frustrated political causes, right-wing extremists resort to terrorism.

But saying that the left is as bad as the Colorado shooter isn't a valid argument. The right is aware that there is a distinction between terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester and shooting medical professionals in cold blood. Seriously, you see the difference, don't you?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> *There is no political agenda.* The constitutional determination has been made. Roe v Wade determined that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester. That question is settled, and Roe V Wade will never be heard again.
> 
> So, with respect to abortion the left has no political cause to pursue. But the right still holds out hope that somehow they can influence the system to end abortion. *[That is called a political agenda.]* There is no progress being made on ending abortion so the right is frustrated. Like most frustrated political causes, right-wing extremists resort to terrorism.
> 
> But saying that the left is as bad as the Colorado shooter isn't a valid argument. The right is aware that there is a distinction between terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester and shooting medical professionals in cold blood. Seriously, you see the difference, don't you? *I did not say it mm did*


*Sure there is.* TONS of people would like RvW overturned, and are working the political system to do so. Jeeeez. If there is one side working the political system, the other side does too. Seriously??


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There is no political agenda. The constitutional determination has been made. Roe v Wade determined that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester. That question is settled, and Roe V Wade will never be heard again.
> 
> So, with respect to abortion the left has no political cause to pursue. But the right still holds out hope that somehow they can influence the system to end abortion. There is no progress being made on ending abortion so the right is frustrated. Like most frustrated political causes, right-wing extremists resort to terrorism.
> 
> But saying that the left is as bad as the Colorado shooter isn't a valid argument. The right is aware that there is a distinction between terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester and shooting medical professionals in cold blood. Seriously, you see the difference, don't you?


 History is replete with cases where the SC has decided one way, only to either, have a later court reverse its decision, or, have a Constitutional amendment reverse it for them. 

Terminating a healthy pregnancy is currently legal. Both are cases of homicide and both are cold blooded. Neither should be justified by a civilized society.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> History is replete with cases where the SC has decided one way, only to either, have a later court reverse its decision


I'm not aware of the Supreme Court ever reversing a decision. There have been decisions rendered moot through enactment of federal law or constitutional amendment, but the Supreme Court doesn't rehear cases.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> History is replete with cases where the SC has decided one way, only to either, have a later court reverse its decision, or, have a Constitutional amendment reverse it for them.
> 
> *Terminating a healthy pregnancy is currently legal.* Both are cases of *homicide* and both are cold blooded. Neither should be justified by a civilized society.


At least that statement is factual.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of the Supreme Court ever reversing a decision. There have been decisions rendered moot through enactment of federal law or constitutional amendment, but the Supreme Court doesn't rehear cases.


Generally I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source unless it links to a valid site or instance of what is being discussed. In this instance, it does so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I think it's disgusting that this conversation is even happening. Y'all know the truth. If this kind of thing keeps up, one of these pieces of absolute garbage will show up with a bomb, and they'll kill women who were there for pap smears. And when that happens, and y'all don't scale back your rhetoric, you better warm your butts up because that hell you believe in has place for you, might as well ease into it. That man was scum of the earth and two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of the Supreme Court ever reversing a decision. There have been decisions rendered moot through enactment of federal law or constitutional amendment, but the Supreme Court doesn't rehear cases.


 Here are 10 cases where prior decisions have been overturned by the court: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm#page=0


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I think it's disgusting that this conversation is even happening. Y'all know the truth. If this kind of thing keeps up, one of these pieces of absolute garbage will show up with a bomb, and they'll kill women who were there for pap smears. And when that happens, and y'all don't scale back your rhetoric, you better warm your butts up because that hell you believe in has place for you, might as well ease into it. *That man was scum of the earth and two wrongs don't make a right*.


Which is pretty much what I have been saying the whole time.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Which is pretty much what I have been saying the whole time.


I believe you. I was scrolling fast and refusing to look at names. I don't really want to know. I just know I saw a couple of apologies and comparisons that made me a little angry. If we're going to be angry at terrorists, let's be consistent. And let's not defend the rhetoric that exploits vulnerable minds. Ted Cruz should step down and disappear for the horse manure he's spreading. I think he wants a war.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> At least that statement is factual.


 The whole statement is factual:whistlin:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> I think it's disgusting that this conversation is even happening. Y'all know the truth. If this kind of thing keeps up, one of these pieces of absolute garbage will show up with a bomb, and they'll kill women who were there for pap smears. And when that happens, and y'all don't scale back your rhetoric, you better warm your butts up because that hell you believe in has place for you, might as well ease into it. That man was scum of the earth and two wrongs don't make a right.


My point exactly..


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> My point exactly..


Thanks man.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The whole statement is factual:whistlin:


Abortion is legal. You may not like it, but it is.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion is legal. You may not like it, but it is.


 Care to show me where I have said otherwise?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Generally I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source unless it links to a valid site or instance of what is being discussed. In this instance, it does so here you go:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions


Generally those are examples of applying a decision in practice. The same will be true for Roe v Wade. While the decision will never be reheard, the practice of abortion is not without limitation. We can expect future decisions to regulate the practice of abortion in various ways.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope.


 Could it be because you can't?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Generally those are examples of applying a decision in practice. The same will be true for Roe v Wade. While the decision will never be reheard, the practice of abortion is not without limitation. We can expect future decisions to regulate the practice of abortion in various ways.


 Or, reverse the legality of it completely. I would prefer a Constitutional amendment that enumerates the humanity and right to life for the unborn, but, I will take either a partial, or, full reversal of Roe V. Wade in the mean time.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Could it be because you can't?


Well the standard was set a couple weeks ago that when one member 'accused' another member of saying something; THE one ACCUSING MUST prove or they will be infracted.......

You are not allowed to say "find it yourself" or "I'm not your goggle mommy" or "no, nope, neyt, nada, or any other form of negative".

Jus sayin'


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope.





Laura Zone 5 said:


> Well the standard was set a couple weeks ago that when one member 'accused' another member of saying something; THE one ACCUSING MUST prove or they will be infracted.......
> 
> You are not allowed to say "find it yourself" or "I'm not your goggle mommy" or "no, nope, neyt, nada, or any other form of negative".
> 
> Jus sayin'


Hmmm..


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Hmmm..


Sent you a pm / email.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Do you really have issues understanding what I typed? It is pretty clear. This is just another of *your regular attacks* on the Anti-Abortion people and someone took the opportunity to add in Christians. My one and only point. When this thread is done, one of your crew will trot out another sicko that you can paste your labels on so that you can re-attack those issues over and over. Simple?
> 
> It can be proven by noticing the topic that your crew uses and the regularity of the attacks.


I understand your posts quite well.

Others are discussing the actual topic, and you are complaining about "attacks" when you jumped right in with your off-topic comments.

Nothing I posted was false. If you don't like the topic, don't bother to read it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> That, right there.
> 
> That's why I'm a pro-life advocate. I don't have to kill anybody to be an advocate and get laws changed.
> 
> But, in all honesty, I can see how the practice of *selling baby parts *is so abhorrent that it could send some, whose mental capacity is already shaky, over the edge. It is _that_ repulsive.


Nobody was doing that


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nobody was doing that


This has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone that still believes it is deliberately blocking out the truth. I personally think it's a mental issue.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You are pro abortion.
> 
> ...


You've gotten almost nothing straight. Ive repeatedly stated I wish no abortions ever occurred. Because I object to police checkpoints doesn't make me pro drunk driving. Because I object to programs like stop and frisk doesn't make me pro criminal. Because I object to government interfering in a woman's choice and doctor's practice doesn't make me pro abortion.

Killing to further a political agenda is nothing new. Our country wouldn't exist if it hadn't. My question is why some of those who use terms like murder and homicide take a rather lackadaisical approach to stopping what can only be characterized as mass murder by their view. It seems much more rational to me to do whatever is neccessary to stop mass murder. It seems crazy that if so many think it is mass murder so few really try to stop it. I'm not advocating for such action because I think the underlying premise that abortion is murder or homicide is false.

I think acts such as Dear's meet the classical definition of terrorism and to try to characterize them as being the acts of crazy people is a not so subtle attempt to 
diminish them and what they mean and to distance those who share their views from them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> You've gotten almost nothing straight. Ive repeatedly stated I wish no abortions ever occurred. Because I object to police checkpoints doesn't make me pro drunk driving. Because I object to programs like stop and frisk doesn't make me pro criminal. Because I object to government interfering in a woman's choice and doctor's practice doesn't make me pro abortion.
> 
> Killing to further a political agenda is nothing new. Our country wouldn't exist if it hadn't. My question is why some of those who use terms like murder and homicide take a rather lackadaisical approach to stopping what can only be characterized as mass murder by their view. It seems much more rational to me to do whatever is neccessary to stop mass murder. It seems crazy that if so many think it is mass murder so few really try to stop it. I'm not advocating for such action because I think the underlying premise that abortion is murder or homicide is false.
> 
> ...


Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> I truly am offended by that. For Heaven's sake, go read something about martyrs & saints. Sheesh.
> 
> And as to the post about who's calling whom a terrorist, go read some definitions there too.
> 
> There's a little something about monsters who murder innocents IN THE NAME OF a theocratic ideology that is instructing them to do so. Doesn't anyone who's non-conserve get this??? If not, why not?


You are really going to run with the argument that Martyrdom wasn't prized? Maybe you should go and Google some Saints and Martyrs.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I don't think Dear is a terrorist. I think he was an emotional man who has clearly suffered mental issues most of his life. I think he got wound up by overheated political rhetoric and videos full of falsehoods and he just lost it. The only thing he could think to do was shut down the clinic so he could make it stop. He was quite clear in his goals to stop the murder of babies. 

I will be really curious to hear what he did in there all that time he as in the clinic. he obviously spent some time wandering around in there. 


> &#8220;You&#8217;ll never know what I saw in that clinic,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Atrocities. The babies. That&#8217;s what they want to seal.&#8221;
> &#8220;You&#8217;ll never know the amount of blood I saw in that place,&#8221; he said at one point, KCNC-TV reported.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nobody was doing that


Okay, fetal tissue then. 

Never mind that the tissue was *part of a baby*.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Okay, fetal tissue then.
> 
> Never mind that the tissue was *part of a baby*.


What is your point? There has been tissue research in the US for decades. 

You have stated that you'd have no problem with fetal tissue research if the tissue was taken from a still born so your issue is only when abortion is involved. It's not the research, it's not the reimbursement, it's abortion and the fact that you will do anything to stop it. Correct? 

The bottom line is that abortion is legal, Planned Parenthood is still sending tissue to research (for free) and woman can't be controlled via their reproductive system. It's a good thing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> I don't think Dear is a terrorist. I think he was an emotional man who has clearly suffered mental issues most of his life. I think he got wound up by overheated political rhetoric and videos full of falsehoods and he just lost it. The only thing he could think to do was shut down the clinic so he could make it stop. He was quite clear in his goals to stop the murder of babies.
> 
> I will be really curious to hear what he did in there all that time he as in the clinic. he obviously spent some time wandering around in there.


Here's a fairly basic definition of terrorism. http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism. Dear's actions fit. 

For anyone to act as he did on his beliefs they must be a bit "crazy". But to allow that craziness to be used as the excuse for his actions lets all those who feed the crazy by continuing to rant about selling baby parts, murder and homocide off the hook for their role in his actions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Here's a fairly basic definition of terrorism. http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism. Dear's actions fit.
> 
> For anyone to act as he did on his beliefs they must be a bit "crazy". *But to allow that craziness to be used as the excuse for his actions lets all those who feed the crazy by continuing to rant about selling baby parts, murder and homocide off the hook for their role in his actions.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> He is responsible for his actions, him, just him, not those who talk about the ugliness of Abortion. That is why we must not let crazy terrorists kill people. They hurt the cause. You would have the anti-abortion crowd silenced because of the actions of one crazy terrorist. Trump would have an entire religion silenced, excluded, monitored, and registered because of the acts of a few crazy terrorists. It would seem that you two are not altogether that different.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a fairly basic definition of terrorism. http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism. Dear's actions fit.
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > I have no desire to silence you. I'd like you, just as I would the Donald, to weigh the effect those words might have on others not as rational as you and whether those words are appropriate and the best way to convey your message.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > We have no idea what of our words will set people off. I have seen people get upset at the word "chocolate". Shocking words get people to think and remember.
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > And act irrationally. Why use them if not to garner reaction? Denying you know what that reaction might be denies a lot.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot let ourselves pull our words because of what some crazy terrorist might do. No more than we should change our culture to appease ISIS.
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > But wouldn't it be nice if ISIS didn't use terms like the "Great Satan" to demonize us and rally support? Wouldn't it be nice if those who characterize all Muslims as terrorists in waiting would be a bit more nuanced. *Wouldn't it be nicer if you didn't characterize those doing perfectly legal things as murderers, committing homicide, baby killers and all the other emotionally charged terms used.* Maybe if the rhetoric was dialed down we could have rational conversations about our differences and how to overcome them rather than hardening hearts further and inspiring more violence against those we disagree with.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > But, with the exception of the word "murderers" those are accurate labels. If they sting, wouldn't that indicate truth. If someone wants to use our words as an excuse to justify their evil deeds, that is on them. It has nothing to do with me. Evil and crazy people don't need justification.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Okay, fetal tissue then.
> 
> Never mind that the tissue was *part of a baby*.


They weren't selling that either.
Even if they were, it's not your business what anyone else does


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot let ourselves pull our words because of what some crazy terrorist might do. *No more than we should change* our culture to appease ISIS.
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _I don't think Dear is a terrorist. I think he was an emotional man who has clearly suffered mental issues most of his life. I think he got wound up by overheated political rhetoric and videos full of falsehoods and he just lost it. The only thing he could think to do was shut down the clinic so he could make it stop. He was quite clear in his goals to stop the murder of babies.
> 
> I will be really curious to hear what he did in there all that time he as in the clinic. he obviously spent some time wandering around in there._





mmoetc said:


> Here's a fairly basic definition of terrorism. http://i.word.com/idictionary/terrorism. Dear's actions fit.
> 
> For anyone to act as he did on his beliefs they must be a bit "crazy". But to allow that craziness to be used as the excuse for his actions lets all those who feed the crazy by continuing to rant about selling baby parts, murder and homocide off the hook for their role in his actions.


I don't think he did it to terrorise people into doing what he wanted. I think his goal was to shut down that particular clinic permanently through his shooting the people there. I wonder if the doctor who performs abortions was there that day? Did he go in looking for the doctor? I don't think we have enough info at this point to label him a terrorist.

I do put great blame on the people who created the videos and the news and media outlets and politicians who blew it wildly out of proportion. Even if he is mentally unstable or even mentally ill it doesn't give a pass to those who wound him up. I don't think he ever would have done what he did if he hadn't been worked up over the PP videos and rhetoric. Again it will be interesting to hear more about what drove him.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

So much love for those fetuses (which no one was profiting on). So much Jesus inspired caring and protection. But as soon as you're born...if these people don't like the way you are...you're on your own. Especially if you're just collateral damage in this war on terror. You shouldn't have had your wedding reception next to that terrorist, dead people. 

I'm gonna go throw up now.


----------

