This is why the pro-life movement gets laughed at

Lacmeh,

Since I doubt you will provide me with the info I asked for (I am sure you think it is my responsibility to find such info) I did a quick internet search with some simple key words. Since the proof that pro-life groups condemn violence was so easily found, I have gone ahead and posted a very SMALL sampling of articles and statements available clearly giving the predominant pro-life position concerning violence.

vatican

Chrisitian coalition

This one has numerous quotes and position statements from many Christian and conservative leaders and groups.NCLP

NCLP - non-violence advocates - many more statements

Organization comments for non-violence

List of those who have signed anti-violence pledge from NCLP

Michigan Daily Excerpt -

What I find exemplary is that people on both sides of the issue condemn such actions, as Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition, openly stated Thursday.

Click to expand...

www.athensnewspapers.com/1997/011897/+condemn+%2Bbombing+%2Babortion+%2Bclinic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Georgia newspaper[/URL]

Pro-life Georgians decried Thursday's abortion-clinic bombing as "a reprehensible act of violence" and a pro-choice advocate called the act a "wake-up call" to the possibility that the pendulum in the abortion debate is swinging toward her opponent.

Click to expand...

Humanlife.net

Massachussetts Pro life


www.goddesscafe.com/opinion/clinicbomb.html+condemn+%2Bbombing+%2Babortion+%2Bclinic+%2Bpro-life&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]re:Alabama bombing[/URL]

I hope these sufficed to shed some light on your thinking. The anti-life groups really want you to be like a mushroom. Living in the dark and being fed "poo poo".

Violence by pro abortionists

Documented cases - Click the link and select a state. Gee, which group is supposedly violent again??

Ok, supporting the right free choice for women is anti life, then everyone supporting the killing of supposed terrorists without due process is anti life, too. Everyone supporting the free ownership of guns is anti Life, too. (Guns are made for one purpose only and that is killing)
If I am so anti life, why I am opposing the free ownership of guns? Why I am then opposing the death sentence? Why I am opposing going to war for purely interrests in ressources? Strange things to do for an anti lifer.. Or perhaps you should be a bit slower in labelling people...
The question here is twofold.
First, when does life begin.
Second, the right of a women over her body.
To adress the first question, about 30% of all fertilized eggs make it to conceived babies. God ( or whatever higher force people believe in) is killing far more babies than all clinics doing abortions. Thus the question stands, are fertilized eggs really the beginning of life...
Second and equally important is the right of the woman over her body.

All pro lifers want to force their views onto the general population. Because they are lobbying into the legislation. A non forcing would be the holding of a general, secret poll over all voters. If a significant part (>66%) of all voters does aggree with pro lifers, then it´s not forcing. Anything else, like wanting to get religious laws instituted, that have not the general acceptance of the population, is forcing religion onto people.

The next stage would then be the outlawing of contraceptives. Sex, according to the Bible is only acceptable if done with the intent for creating new life. And contraceptives are prohibiting the forming of new life. Is that not denying a baby a chance tolive, too?
Or what about sterilization? Why is it allowed? After all it is the ultimate denying of life, since those people can never have any babies...

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Ok, supporting the right free choice for women is anti life, then everyone supporting the killing of supposed terrorists without due process is anti life, too. Everyone supporting the free ownership of guns is anti Life, too. (Guns are made for one purpose only and that is killing)
If I am so anti life, why I am opposing the free ownership of guns? Why I am then opposing the death sentence? Why I am opposing going to war for purely interrests in ressources? Strange things to do for an anti lifer.. Or perhaps you should be a bit slower in labelling people...
The question here is twofold.
First, when does life begin.
Second, the right of a women over her body.
To adress the first question, about 30% of all fertilized eggs make it to conceived babies. God ( or whatever higher force people believe in) is killing far more babies than all clinics doing abortions. Thus the question stands, are fertilized eggs really the beginning of life...
Second and equally important is the right of the woman over her body.

All pro lifers want to force their views onto the general population. Because they are lobbying into the legislation. A non forcing would be the holding of a general, secret poll over all voters. If a significant part (>66%) of all voters does aggree with pro lifers, then it´s not forcing. Anything else, like wanting to get religious laws instituted, that have not the general acceptance of the population, is forcing religion onto people.

The next stage would then be the outlawing of contraceptives. Sex, according to the Bible is only acceptable if done with the intent for creating new life. And contraceptives are prohibiting the forming of new life. Is that not denying a baby a chance tolive, too?
Or what about sterilization? Why is it allowed? After all it is the ultimate denying of life, since those people can never have any babies...

Click to expand...

You have every right to feel and think what you like. I happen to disagree with you. BTW, you are taking your argument to such a ridiculous extreme that it has no viability whatsoever.

Why don't we go back to your original question concerning the stance of pro-life organizations towards violence against abortionists? Or is that something you are going to ignore now that I have posted the information you wanted which disproves your earlier theory? You could at least acknowledge the information I posted for you.

I am on readign them, so I can´t comment now. So to be consistent in the argument, why is the owning of a tool, tha tis solely made for taking life not being anti Life?
Or can you comment on why God chooses to abort children, but that´s ok, but when a human does tha *** is not ok? Where´s the consistency in that?
Why are so many Christians against using contrceptives then? Why are so many Christians opposing familiy planning? Or did that just happen to be in my mind and not in reality?
Why is it not forcing views on the general populace, when you don´t know, if the general populace agrees with you? Or are the pro lifers fearing the outcome of such a poll?

Originally posted by Lacmeh
I am on readign them, so I can´t comment now. So to be consistent in the argument, why is the owning of a tool, tha tis solely made for taking life not being anti Life?
Or can you comment on why God chooses to abort children, but that´s ok, but when a human does tha *** is not ok? Where´s the consistency in that?
Why are so many Christians against using contrceptives then? Why are so many Christians opposing familiy planning? Or did that just happen to be in my mind and not in reality?
Why is it not forcing views on the general populace, when you don´t know, if the general populace agrees with you? Or are the pro lifers fearing the outcome of such a poll?

Click to expand...

You are asking me questions concerning the privately held convictions of some and trying to apply it to Christendom as a whole.

God doesn't abort children. Miscarriages happen due to the fallen nature of man.

A gun is not solely for killing. I have owned one since I was a child and never killed anyone. I have had a lot of fun shooting targets though.

Most Christians are not against contraceptives. At least the ones I know.

What exactly is family planning? The drivel that Planned Parenthood spouts? Again, I can't answer for all of Christendom.

Actually, I think there have been polls. I have seen many that show results of a pro-life majority in America. But it really doesn't matter - polls don't make wrongs right.

Now, will you answer a question for me? One that I am sure will seem ridiculous to you, but is in the same line of thought as your arguments. If it is okay to kill unborn children, is it okay to kill an adult just because they inconveience me? How about a teenager? Or how about a 6 month old? A 6 month old can't care for themselves - the child would be lost without a parent to feed and clean him/her. So the child isn't viable when it can't care for itself right?

Your first link, technically the Head of Catholic Church is still the Pope. As long as the Pope doesn´t state such a thing, the leader of the church is silent on the matter. After all the same is asked for Muslim leaders.
Where are the leaders of the Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Protestant, Presberytan and the many other churches denouncing violoence? I have a list for over 60 organisations, engaged in Pro life movement. each leader of each organisation has to denounce each violent act, in accordance to the Muslim analogy.

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Your first link, technically the Head of Catholic Church is still the Pope. As long as the Pope doesn´t state such a thing, the leader of the church is silent on the matter. After all the same is asked for Muslim leaders.
Where are the leaders of the Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Protestant, Presberytan and the many other churches denouncing violoence? I have a list for over 60 organisations, engaged in Pro life movement. each leader of each organisation has to denounce each violent act, in accordance to the Muslim analogy.

Click to expand...

Please post your list and I will look into it. I can see though, that we won't get anywhere. I will continue to post information refuting your misstatements and you will continue to expand the scope of your argument ad infinitum.

In response to your request I ask something of you. Of that list of 60 that you have, will you please post an article of belief (documented please) that calls for killing abortionists? Because to follow your analogy and to make your argument work you must show proof that christians beliefs are based upon the murder of abortionists, just as Islam is based on teachings in the Koran which state that infidels should be killed.

Hm, the last time, I checked, a gun wasn´t made for the purpose to shoot bullets at lifeless targets. The purpose to shoot at lifeless targets, is to get more proficient in its use.
There are quite a few violent passages in the bible, like do not suffer a witch to live. In not so many years ago this was jsutification enoguh to kill so coalled witches. So what to make of this passage nowadays? What is God´s command now about witches? Does this make Christianity not violent?
Well, you provided link of a view individuals and a few organisations opposing violence in the debate. Now I state, that I miss the big Christian churches leaders to make the same statements. Please note, it is not enough for some bishop to make the statement, it must come from the designated leader, the same is asked of the Muslims after all.

If the majority of the people would want the outlawing of abortion, then the pro lifers would not have such a hard time trying to outlaw abortion, would they? So I am forced to conclude, that the majority of people have other interpretations of bible passages than the pro lifers.

Ultimately it is the body of the woman. She undergoes all the changes and the stress and pain, not anybody else. If she feels herself unfit to undergo these changes, should be her right to take means.
This is like the Jehovas witnesses trying to outlaw blood transfusions. Would you aggree with that? Or want to subjected to such a law? After all they only want to prevent You losing your soul to the devil. Why fight it then?

I personally believe in order to be truly pro-life, one must oppose ALL killings of human beings, whether after birth with the death penalty or in war or other killings. Unless someone opposes all killings of humans in all circumstances, s/he isn't pro-life.

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Hm, the last time, I checked, a gun wasn´t made for the purpose to shoot bullets at lifeless targets. The purpose to shoot at lifeless targets, is to get more proficient in its use.

Click to expand...

Hm, so now you know the purpose of my gun? No, not unless you know why I bought the gun. Do you have a knife? I guess you are a killer then, right? I mean the purpose of a knife is to penetrate flesh and cut it open right? So, if you own anything other than a butter knife you would be a killer. Well, just like the knife, the gun can't get up and kill anything, but a person can whether with a knife, gun, baseball bat, or bare hands. Now, let's keep the discussion relevant.

There are quite a few violent passages in the bible, like do not suffer a witch to live. In not so many years ago this was jsutification enoguh to kill so coalled witches. So what to make of this passage nowadays? What is God´s command now about witches? Does this make Christianity not violent?

Click to expand...

What passages are you talking about? Documentation would be nice. Also, I would like to point out that we are discussing Christians. Just so you keep your point of reference correct - there were no Christians before Jesus Christ came. I cannot and will not explain and/or try to defend anything that man has erroneously done in the name of Christ in centuries past. We are discussing a specific subject here and i have gone to great lengths to do your work for you and give you all info you have requested. You can show a little gratitude and respect by keeping the discussion on topic. That topic is abortion, not witches.

Well, you provided link of a view individuals and a few organisations opposing violence in the debate. Now I state, that I miss the big Christian churches leaders to make the same statements. Please note, it is not enough for some bishop to make the statement, it must come from the designated leader, the same is asked of the Muslims after all.

Click to expand...

The links I provided have many more than just a few people and organizations condemning violence. And you have failed to show me where any documentation concerning predominant Christian doctrine is that says "kill the abortionist". Until you can show me that we do not have a parallel to Islam.

If the majority of the people would want the outlawing of abortion, then the pro lifers would not have such a hard time trying to outlaw abortion, would they? So I am forced to conclude, that the majority of people have other interpretations of bible passages than the pro lifers.

Click to expand...

Yep, and Roe V. Wade was passed by a popular vote. The majority of court justices at that time had other interpretations. Please, go back to civics class and find out how our government works before you make any other statements like that.

Ultimately it is the body of the woman. She undergoes all the changes and the stress and pain, not anybody else. If she feels herself unfit to undergo these changes, should be her right to take means.
This is like the Jehovas witnesses trying to outlaw blood transfusions. Would you aggree with that? Or want to subjected to such a law? After all they only want to prevent You losing your soul to the devil. Why fight it then? [/B]

Click to expand...

Did the woman choose her body? Where did it come from? When did it become hers? What about the forming (and in some cases formED) body of the baby? Who's body is that. If the child were allowed to reach an age where they could defend themselves I am sure they would choose to keep their bodies intact.

Again, JWs have nothing to do with this discussion, but I will say that I disagree with them. Why? Because they are choosing death, not life. Now, let us stay on topic please.

Oh, and I am still waiting on your list of 60 and the source of any belief that we are to kill abortionists. I have met each of your challenges and hope you will at least try to meet mine. The list of 60 shouldn't be hard since you said you actually have it.

Originally posted by Rae
I personally believe in order to be truly pro-life, one must oppose ALL killings of human beings, whether after birth with the death penalty or in war or other killings. Unless someone opposes all killings of humans in all circumstances, s/he isn't pro-life.

Click to expand...

Yet, if a murderer breaks into my home and I do not defend my family to the death and allow the murderer to kill my family then, by virtue of having an extreme, unrealistic belief - I just became anti-life by allowing my children to die due to lack of pertinent action.

Opposing any killing whatsoever is easy when the opposing is done from safety.

Like I said, that is my personal belief. Unless you are pro-human life even in extreme circumstances, I will NOT call you pro-life.

Now, if you really need my validation, you can say "I oppose all violence against human beings." If not, you can refuse to respond. I don't care...but I won't call you pro-life unless you oppose all takings of human life other than "natural" (disease, old age) ones.

Tericl2, the purpose of a knife (other than combat knife) is usually to cut bread, cheese, meat, not to ram it into living things.
The purpose of a baseball is usually to hit a thrown leather ball, not human bodies.
The analogy with Islam is, that the people want all Islam leaders to denounce every single act of terrorism. Failure to do so is proof of support.
The same argument must be valid in other cases, too. Failure of every single church leader to condemn every single act of violence is a show of support.

You might follow the link
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/organizations.html
then every single leader of every of this organisations has to denounce violence and calls for violence. Otherwise the support because of silence is valid.

The topic is not only abortion. This is only part of the topic. The other part is the right of humans over their body.
Since men don´t undergo anything like a pregnancy, I tried to find an analogy. Therefore I used the beliefs of the JW. Since they belief, that the blood is holy and should be untouchable and everyone doing transfusions is just flat out morally wrong, wanting a legislation forbidding it, is something like the abortion debate. The forcing of one belief system and morals onto the general population without a significant part of the general population agreeing with said belief system. Said legislation would hinder your free choice over your body. But it is done with goodwill for yoour salvation. Is this now right or wrong?
It is one thing to forbid those, who do abortions, those who undergo abortions to enter churches and receive sacraments. That is entirely qwithin the rights of every church. But it is quite another thing, to force legislation because of a religious belief system.

As for the break in part. Well I can hardly belief, that any sensible robber would be breaking in, when the house or flat is inhibited. It is far less hassle and risk (not only because of inhabitant might be armed) to do robberies, when the house or flat is empty. And I fin dit interesting, how people can find their way to the locked weapons closet in absolute darkness, unlock it in absolute darkness, load the weapon absolute silently and go to the robber absolute silently, unguard the weapon absolute silently and then confront the robber...

Originally posted by tericl2
Here is a story concerning the modern medical practices you seem so confident in. Hospital infections Due to lack of basic hygiene our illustrious doctors and medical institutions directly cause/contribute to America's fourth leading cause of death!!

Click to expand...

These stories always bother me. Mostly because people have such little understanding of how much better off we are because of medical science. A hundred years ago people commonly died of acute disease that most of us have never even heard of now. Anyone know of anyone that died of typhoid or scarlet fever? Not so long ago it would have been likely that someone in your family would have had, and that close to one in three of your siblings wouldn't have reached adulthood. Sorry that doctors and other health care workers aren't perfect, but the reason the nosocomial infections are such a problem are manyfold, including that fact that sick people are in a hospital so that there are a lot more chances to get infections. Look at the third world to understand how well off we are.

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Tericl2, the purpose of a knife (other than combat knife) is usually to cut bread, cheese, meat, not to ram it into living things.
The purpose of a baseball is usually to hit a thrown leather ball, not human bodies.
The analogy with Islam is, that the people want all Islam leaders to denounce every single act of terrorism. Failure to do so is proof of support.
The same argument must be valid in other cases, too. Failure of every single church leader to condemn every single act of violence is a show of support.

You might follow the link
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/organizations.html
then every single leader of every of this organisations has to denounce violence and calls for violence. Otherwise the support because of silence is valid.

The topic is not only abortion. This is only part of the topic. The other part is the right of humans over their body.
Since men don´t undergo anything like a pregnancy, I tried to find an analogy. Therefore I used the beliefs of the JW. Since they belief, that the blood is holy and should be untouchable and everyone doing transfusions is just flat out morally wrong, wanting a legislation forbidding it, is something like the abortion debate. The forcing of one belief system and morals onto the general population without a significant part of the general population agreeing with said belief system. Said legislation would hinder your free choice over your body. But it is done with goodwill for yoour salvation. Is this now right or wrong?
It is one thing to forbid those, who do abortions, those who undergo abortions to enter churches and receive sacraments. That is entirely qwithin the rights of every church. But it is quite another thing, to force legislation because of a religious belief system.

As for the break in part. Well I can hardly belief, that any sensible robber would be breaking in, when the house or flat is inhibited. It is far less hassle and risk (not only because of inhabitant might be armed) to do robberies, when the house or flat is empty. And I fin dit interesting, how people can find their way to the locked weapons closet in absolute darkness, unlock it in absolute darkness, load the weapon absolute silently and go to the robber absolute silently, unguard the weapon absolute silently and then confront the robber...

Click to expand...

Concerning abortion - Your original query concerned the condemnation by pro-life groups of violence toward abortion doctors and clinics, and the supposed parallels between said groups and Islamists if no such condemnation were found. By expanding the argument over and over you are simply erecting a smokescreen to hide your lack of logical facts or conclusions and sidetrack me so that you can continually barrage me with further new arguments.

I have answered your original query and have been nice enough to answer some of your other "off topic" questions and concerns also. It is now your turn to do some research and respond in an intelligent manner to my questions, which have been posed to you more than once now.

Concerning your link - Did you check it against every person that signed the NCLP pledge for non-violence which I posted? If not please get back to me with the results when you have. I provided the means, you need to provide the time and work.

Concerning Islam parallels - Can't find the relevant info concerning Christian beliefs, huh? Until you can this is a one sided comparison and so inherently unfair and biased. It is illogic for me to even try to continue a debate in which you provide no dissenting information, only dissenting opinion, most of which is illogical and designed to continually evade salient points and information. It also clogs the debate with numerous, yet meaningless challenges and counter challenges - none of which are pertinent.

As for the break in....well, I believe there are probably a few victims which would strongly disagree with you.

Originally posted by MSBS
These stories always bother me. Mostly because people have such little understanding of how much better off we are because of medical science. A hundred years ago people commonly died of acute disease that most of us have never even heard of now. Anyone know of anyone that died of typhoid or scarlet fever? Not so long ago it would have been likely that someone in your family would have had, and that close to one in three of your siblings wouldn't have reached adulthood. Sorry that doctors and other health care workers aren't perfect, but the reason the nosocomial infections are such a problem are manyfold, including that fact that sick people are in a hospital so that there are a lot more chances to get infections. Look at the third world to understand how well off we are.

Click to expand...

Before you jump to any more conclusions, please re-read my original post and take the paragraph you snipped in context of my whole post and in the context of the thread in general up to that point.

It was written as a mere example that medical procedures and the medical field in general are not perfect regardless of all the tests and approvals required.

"With the Islam analogy, every leader of every organisation has to denounce violence against pro lifers. After all, that is expected of the Muslim leaders, why not of the leaders of pro life organisations?"

LOL, you said it never happened, I proved you wrong, suck it up.

Outspoken, where did you prove me wrong?
When did the heads of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Protestant churches adress this issue? And exactly every act of violence?
Just saying you proved me wrong is easy, claiming something without backup seems the way to go.
Well, perhpas I have other things to do, than search through the entire bible, since it´s Christmas really soon.
Yes I followed your links, about 20 organisations were represented, the rest? Perhaps you didn´t follow my link?
It is hard to find a good analogy for the abortion debate. I think I found one wit the JW. Why shouldn´t there be a law regarding the forbidding of blood transfusions? JW are concerned about your soul, as you are concerned about the soul of unborn children. Does this religious concern validate legislation over all people regardless their own beliefs and religion?
People get condemned by Christians, when preventing the conceived egg to nest in the uterus, but when God does it, it is ok?

"Outspoken, where did you prove me wrong?"

I showed some quotes showing prolifers saying that was wrong. Just accept you were proven wrong. Pro-life people speak up when a bombing happens and we say its wrong. Your attempt to show otherwise has failed.