It's "terrorism" to destroy an abortion clinic???!!!

zoo22

Well-known member
quit with all the straw men already

I clearly said BUILDINGS... as opposed to buildings with HUMANS in them...

typical lib tactic... set up a straw man and attack away... well, let the straw fall where it may...

Oh Moron City....


++++

You said you think people shooting abortionists is admirable, so why wouldn't you admire killing abortionists in a bombing? If you support people going out and killing abortionists why would it matter to you if it's killing them with a gun in church or killing them with a bomb in an abortion clinic?
 

Crowns&Laurels

BANNED
Banned
You said you think people shooting abortionists is admirable, so why wouldn't you admire killing abortionists in a bombing? If you support people going out and killing abortionists why would it matter to you if it's killing them with a gun in church or killing them with a bomb in an abortion clinic?

Because it's not about the people, it's about the institution.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
You said you think people shooting abortionists is admirable, so why wouldn't you admire killing abortionists in a bombing? If you support people going out and killing abortionists why would it matter to you if it's killing them with a gun in church or killing them with a bomb in an abortion clinic?

Because it's not about the people, it's about the institution.

What? What does that have to do with how you kill an abortionist?

Because it's about the institution, not the people, it's preferable to shoot an abortionist in a church than to blow up an abortionist in a clinic?

Are you for real?
 

republicanchick

New member
You said you think people shooting abortionists is admirable, so why wouldn't you admire killing abortionists in a bombing? If you support people going out and killing abortionists why would it matter to you if it's killing them with a gun in church or killing them with a bomb in an abortion clinic?

you got me

as long as they are gone, who cares?

(Am I being facetious? You figure it out)
 

republicanchick

New member
Because it's about the institution, not the people, it's preferable to shoot an abortionist in a church than to blow up an abortionist in a clinic?

Are you for real?

you are appalled at buildings being blown up but babies being abort, not so much

Are you for real?


++
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned


Michael Brown was a thug who asked for what he got. The courts and even the AG Holder have NOT brought charges against Darren Wilson

so why are you?

oh, that's right... never mind. I already know the answer to that:

you are a lib

+
In the Bible, there is a reoccuring theme whereby those who pass judgment on others, are actually passing judgment on themselves.

"Republicanchick" has gone to great lengths to denounce abortion as the taking of human life but then she proceeds to pass judgment as to whether Michael Brown has a right to live.

"Michael Brown was a thug who asked for what he got."

Whether Michael Brown was a "thug" or not is immaterial - God gave him life and who are we to dismiss his tragic death as he "asked for what he got."

Only God can judge as to whether the life of Michael Brown has any less value than the "fetus" in the womb.


The Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:36-40)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What we do know is that based Christ's teachings concerning "The Greatest Commandment" we are to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and that based on "The Parable of the Good Samaritan" we are all each others "neighbors" - including "thugs!"

Matthew 25:40

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Christ has instructed us that when we direct our "love" and "compassion" towards our "neighbors," we are also directing it towards Him.

When we are harsh in judging others, we can expect to be judged harshly by God!
 
Last edited:

republicanchick

New member
:dunce:
In the Bible, there is a reoccuring theme whereby those who pass judgment on others, are actually passing judgment on themselves.

"Republicanchick" has gone to great lengths to denounce abortion as the taking of human life but then she proceeds to pass judgment on as to whether Michael Brown has a right to live.



Whether Michael Brown was a "thug" or not is immaterial - God gave him life and who are we to dismiss his tragic death as he "asked for what he got."

Only God can judge as to whether the life of Michael Brown has any less value than the "fetus" in the womb.



What we do know is that based Christ's teachings concerning "The Greatest Commandment" we are to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and that based on "The Parable of the Good Samaritan" we are all each others "neighbors" - including "thugs!"



Christ has instructed us that when we direct our "love" and "compassion" towards our "neighbors," we are also directing it towards Him.

When we are harsh in judging others, we can expect to be judged harshly by God!

more straw men...

DUMB'

Love your neighbor AS yourself

not MORE THAN yourself

geez... :deadhorse::bang:



=
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Although I see destroying abortion clinics problematic for a few reasons explained earlier, I do understand the sentiment. I used to think the same way 25 years ago. But the principle of nonviolent revolution has demonstrated that nonviolence is a more affective weapon than violence because violence loses you support and gives the authorities justification to squash you. But as I said earlier, the greater reasons not to destroy clinics are explained in an earlier post. But finally, you destroy an idea with a better idea. Jesus didn't teach us to force people into submission; he taught us to show them a better way and then they will follow of their own free will.

Other than the theological issues I have with free will as a Calvinist, I mostly agree with you. I wasn't trying to say we should go out and blow up abortion clinics (I'd also say that we potentially have more non-violent weapons at our disposal in the US than the victims of the Nazis had.) I mostly think most Christians are way too callous about this: "Well, we want to ban abortion but we'd NEVER support THOSE radical nutjobs." If denying the unborn personhood is really as bad as denying black people personhood in the 19th century was (and I believe that it is) its hard to really condemn people who do stuff like this. That doesn't mean I'm saying its a good strategy or that you should go out and do it.
As to Crowns & Laurels' assertion that destroying clinics isn't terrorism unless someone gets injured or killed, part of the reason people destroy clinics is to scare those working there out of business. Creating terror in someone is the definition of terrorism.

I actually agree with him. Terrorism is typically where you kill noncombatants in order to incite terror. By that definition, US drone bombings in Pakistan would count, the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki would count, and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 would count (most people, through a fictitious belief in magic, deny that governments engage in terrorism.) Abortion doctors are murderers, thus combatants, I'd say by normative definitions it isn't "terrorism", even if abortion doctors were killed.
You blow up a building, it's terrorism. Any pro-life person combating abortion by an action which has the inherent capacity to terminate life isn't really pro-life at all.

Again, only terrorism if noncombatants are targeted. Blowing up empty buildings may be wrong (though I don't think it is in this case) but its not terrorism.

Why do you suppose it's illegal to go around blowing up buildings even if one believes they are empty?
[/QUOTE]

Well, it shouldn't be illegal to blow up human-murdering factories, or to kill their owners. Those who murder children should not have any rights.

What? What does that have to do with how you kill an abortionist?

Because it's about the institution, not the people, it's preferable to shoot an abortionist in a church than to blow up an abortionist in a clinic?

Are you for real?

Well, I'd say that an abortion doctor even being in church is doubly bad. Unless he's repenting, its blasphemous.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
It is "terrorism" for a citizen to use violence or a threat of to get a state to change. It is war for a state to use violence or a threat of violence to get another state to change.

Japan committed an act of war on December 7, 1941. Islam committed an act of terrorism on September 11, 2001.

That's a stupid and irrelevant distinction.

"Terrorism is the poor man's war and war is the rich man's terror."
 

republicanchick

New member
I r. By that definition, US drone bombings in Pakistan would count, the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki would count, .

I have a problem w/ this part of your post

we bombed Japan to win the war.. meaning: we bombed to win AND to END the war... as opposed to what is happening now in the middle east, where we do not really want to win... apparently...

we, meaning the admin


+
 

Crowns&Laurels

BANNED
Banned
If wombs had a window, nobody would get an abortion.

Could you imagine an abortionist showing the remains to the would-be mother and saying, "There's your problem, you're all fine now!".

Wouldn't be the case if you were shown a tumor, or some coagulated or foreign object, but as bad as a women couldn't stomach her aborted remains, they sure stomach the idea of their so called autonomy very well.

Ahh, feminism..

There's nothing 'terrorist' about taking down a building of death. It's no different then destroying a death row.
 

republicanchick

New member
If wombs had a window, nobody would get an abortion.

Could you imagine an abortionist showing the remains to the would-be mother and saying, "There's your problem, you're all fine now!".

Wouldn't be the case if you were shown a tumor, or some coagulated or foreign object, but as bad as a women couldn't stomach her aborted remains, they sure stomach the idea of their so called autonomy very well.

Ahh, feminism..

true feminism looks at pregnancy as the beautiful thing it is..

true feminism knows that women just the way they are, are beautiful.. They don't need to violently torment and murder and expel what their bodies produced in order to be acceptable...


__
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
The real question WRT Michael Brown is not whether he "deserved" to die (He had not been tried, thus no government had the right to execute him) but whether Darren Wilson acted in legitimate self-defense.

It might be worth at least considering this article:

http://www.christendomrestored.com/...ation-of-biblical-law-to-homicide-and-murder/

(I am not 100% certain that Bojidar is correct, but at least he actually tries to apply Biblical principles to the situation rather than just automatically siding with the police as conservatives often do, or authomatically siding with the victim because he was black, as liberals often do. Read and decide for yourself.)
 

republicanchick

New member
The real question WRT Michael Brown is not whether he "deserved" to die (He had not been tried, thus no government had the right to execute him) but whether Darren Wilson acted in legitimate self-defense.

It might be worth at least considering this article:

http://www.christendomrestored.com/...ation-of-biblical-law-to-homicide-and-murder/

(I am not 100% certain that Bojidar is correct, but at least he actually tries to apply Biblical principles to the situation rather than just automatically siding with the police as conservatives often do, or authomatically siding with the victim because he was black, as liberals often do. Read and decide for yourself.)


I don't automatically side with anything but the truth. The credible witnesses (and the Grand Jury) said that Wilson was in self defense mode.. Who am I to question that? I was not there... Neither was any of those protesters... (not many anyway) The looters, heck they just needed an "excuse" to vandalize... b/c they are criminals and that's what criminals do: look for opportunities to commit crime



++
 

republicanchick

New member
And I didn't quote you, Mrs. Narcissist;)

You'd probably just call Bojidar a "lib" even though he takes one of the most conservative positions that even exists (theonomy.)

no idea who Bojidar is

and narcissists aren't usually pro life

or Republican

or Catholic (as in truly Cahtolic)

try again



you can't get it wrong all the time... I don't suppose
 
Top