if you were in a burning buliding with a 2 year old and ten frozen embroys and could you only save either the tray or the child, who would you save? I think most people would save the 2 year old. I know nothing like that is even going to happen but it does make you realise that we do place more presedence on life that is already consious.
Not going to bother on the worth of the lives in a single frame. To kill an adult is to steal so much more.
Think about it as if it were an investment -- this will be called cold, but non-the-less. A child is cared for across years, a taxing investment. Preparing an individual for adulthood. Everything in life costs energy, even dev. relations. To kill an adult is to steal from society so much potential that an unborn child simply lacks. Not hire vs not pay for work -- possibly wrong vs wrong.
Never said abortion was right, but this is certainly not an acceptable way to deal with it. This is the sort of behavior that would remove credibility from such movements if repeated too often.
Robbing a woman of her liberty to control her reproduction and forcing her to remain pregnant is kind of stealing from society as well...it actually kind of makes society quite savage and demented. But, you can hang on to your argument and keep thinking that it's valid.
Don't get me wrong - I fully agree that a woman that became pregnant without chosing for it means a big big problem too. But telling her to remain pregnant never is the same crime as telling her to kill her unborn child.
This brings me back to 'Give me liberty of give me death.' Life, without certain liberties, is arguably worse than death. Therefore, to rob a woman of her liberty to control her reproduction (1st trimester only of course) is worse than allowing her the choice to terminate the pregnancy and hence end the life of the fetus. Of course abortion kills- everyone knows that. But it is a justified death so there really is no problem. Death penalty kills too, but it's justified. That's how I see it.
There is no such thing justified death by humans. Nobody has the power or status to decide about the life of somebody - not even a pregnant woman. Also, I disagree that the life of a pregnant women (that did not want to be pregnant) is worse that death. If you re-read that sentense carefully you will hear the contradiction: a terrible life still is life whereas death remains death.
Nevertheless I am not denying that a pregnancy can be horrible under certain circumstances.
Some of the things I find so extraordinary about Paul Hill and his supporters (some of whom I've had contact with) : (1) genuinely compassion for those in need, (2) intellectual integrity (3) courage.
Dawkins may be extraordinarily intelligent, but he abuses his intellect with his wacko materialism and truly insane disregard for the intrinsic rights of the preborn.
Sorry ExtraGarlicNow but Mr Hill is no longer receiving mail at this address! You will have to try using a traditional medium or another form of superstitious mumbo jumbo to try to contact anything that may remain of that sick individual!
Paul Hill was not a hero. He was just a man that wanted to kill. Evidence? He used a shotgun and wounded an abortion doctor's wife. Shotguns are notorious for collateral damage, so your "hero" didn't care who he killed.
Twp wrongs can never make a right and any who believe that they do has fail to understand. Coffee is use full, but do not forget that caffeine is a drug and that substance abuse weakens the rationality of ones thought. Sorry to point this out, but well maybe deeper thought on a wider vision of the world may improve you.
But you're missing the point entirely, the killing of a practicing abortionist isn't a "wrong". In fact, by not acting to defend these threatened children, you and I collaborate to some degree in their murders.
Study up on caffeine. Thank whatever god may be that my vision of the world is not so narrow and my heart so cold and shriveled up as yours clearly is.
MY Dear misguided Friend. First I have studied such things! I would hardly tell a toxicologist that deadly night shade is not a poison, for that would demonstrate ignorance. Now as to your other misunderstanding, where on earth do you get your claim that it is I who is cold and shrivelled of heart? It is not I who is justifying the death of others!! that is you my friend! If the only responce to a problem that you can think of is to kill others, then you are a very sad individual indeed!
Sorry, but your demonstrable ignorance on "poison" is already getting you off track. Vitamin A in too high a dosage is a poison, deadly nightshade in small amounts can actually be therapeutic.
Your preference for the life of a serial killer, child abuser, paid hit person, abortionist over the lives of many children is sub-zero, cold-blooded.
The direct, intentional killing of the preborn child is NEVER necessary.
BrutusCass..... You are al too easy to understand.
You pose as an ABSOLUTIST PACIFIST who believes lethal force is always bad.
Sick!!??, Well, I do have a blister on my big toe.
Tell me, if you'd had a chance to kill Hitler or Stalin, would you have done so? There is never any justification for kiling? Would you ever kill to protect your own child or spouse?
That very comment just show how little understand of me or anything else.
Your shows your ignorance!
If there had been no Hitler or Stalin do you really believe the world would have been saved from such pain? The real problem is never the individual it is the puss of humanity which you are part of! Of course you will chose to take this as an insult rather than taking the time to understand it, I will say it again you are a sick fool! Seek heal in wisdom, not hate.
O1 and before your ignorance causes you to foolish respond Yet again. There is a difference between the PACIFIST who refuses to fight and those you know how to fight and chose the battle carefully. And then there is the Mad idiot who sees red a runs in like a FOOL!
Sorry, dude, I didn't realize you were in such bad shape. I don't make fun of the handicapped. But most civil jurisdictions will help you get back on your meds even if you have little or no income. Hope it goes well for you. All the best.
You are something! (shakes head) You are incapable of even taking your argument seriously, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I should not have expected better really.
Please continue in your ignorance, for there is no help for those who chose to be blind and foolish!
I can't afford to. Prior to a respectful burial, I've held an 8-10 wk old aborted girlchild in my hand. I've been one of the peaceful sit-in protesters at an aborticide death house, while pro-'borts pelted us with used condoms, and one friend was threatened with a needle a pro-bort had jabbed himself with (he said he was going to give her HIV).
Who wants your sympathy? A little sane rationality would be refreshing. Can you at least admit that induced abortion is homicide?
Hitler & Stalin were able to accomplish their horrors because too many people were not extreme enough to oppose them. So long as the trains run and there are bread lines, we'll ignore the death camps and enforced mass starvations of others.
Can you admit that blowing anyone away with a shot gun is wrong from any moral stand point? I see it as six of one and have a dozen of the other. Two little kids in the play ground pulling each others hair and calling names.
Now if they just stop that and work out how the game is play and how the mistakes can be avoided then things would run a lot smother.
As for Homicide are you talking of the legal definition or the concept behind the words?
BC - Ideally, it would be great if "conflict resolution" dialog actually worked without some implied threat or leverage. Would we all just play nice if there were never any consequences for doing otherwise? Without the possibility of deadly force being resorted to by presumed civil authorities, would there be an increase or decrease in general social violence?
BC - Actualy, I can think of situations where it would be grossly immoral to refrain from using a shotgun to blow someone away.....for example, a drug-crazed nut who just broke into my house and threatening my wife & daughter (a hypothetical situation since I'm gay and highly unlikely to marry a woman and have children). By refusing to act, I could wind up a moral accessory to the murders of my wife & child. What's the diff. between pacifism and "passivism"?
I could risk my own life in hand-to-hand combat, but that is a less effective defense for myself and the rest of the household. I could try to reason with the wild-eyed and screaming trespasser, but he's already shown he isn't reasonable....,he broke into my house and is talking about raping my baby girl, then killing her. Yeah, I'm going to talk to him all right -- BANG BANG!!
And don't I know it! Sad, isn't it, that between 1/3 and 1/4 of children inside the womb will be killed before they can enjoy the "whole world outside".
Yes and just how many children are killed every day by bullets? These are the ones that have seen the world outside and only just tasted the joy of youth! Why don't you defend all life and not just that which you USE as your reason for existance!
BC - Are between 3000 and 4000 children in the USA killed daily by bullets? More children in this country die annually in swimming pools than from bullets. Worldwide, abortion is, by far, the #1 killer of children. AND IT"S LEGAL. I don't think it is legal to shoot children, as a rule. You have a weak sense of proportion, or are not using what you've got.
Killing abortionists may not be the only solution to abortion, but it is the best and most effective one I can think of. Plus, the problem that these murderous fiends, abortionists, remain alive IS THE PROBLEM! Killing is sometimes a praiseworthy thing, a great good, when those killed are practicing maniacal serial killers of children.
LittleMachiavelli - but would you trust an abortionist to care for your child? would you trust a person who advocated a "right" to kill children in the womb to care for your child?
LM - how is it "murder" to kill a serial killer of children (an abortionist) whom the civil authorities refuse to restrain? it is "justifiable homicide", not murder, to kill in defense of self or others whose lives are unjustly threatened.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Supreme Court law has stated that bans on abortion are illegal. Thats why government authorities have no obligation to arrest them.
If you dont like what the courts say, then why not advocate a change in the law rather than violence? Why not devote your time to conclusively prove that human life begins at a certain point? It does not help your cause to be express enthusiasm with extremists like Paul Hill.
L.M. - a change in laws is desirable, but cannot save the lives of those scheduled to be murdered by abortionists tomorrow. NEWS FLASH - social evils begin long before the laws against them are enacted.
If you can't change the legal guidelines that dictate what is "unlawful," "life" and "human," then how can you convince society that abortion is the "unlawful killing of a human being" and therefore murder?
To promote the killing of abortion doctors while downplaying any effort to change laws regarding the unborn does nothing to give recognition to any "rights" the unborn have.
LM - you confuse public education with saving lives. public education on the nature of human life and the reality of abortion is a "means", the end is to save the lives of children who reside in wombs. the laws may never change, but the work to save preborn children's lives will continue.
L.M. Of course I oppose ANY direct and intentional taking of innocent human lives. Can you think of a circumstance that would make it morally reasonable to shoot down a 5 year old in the street as she played ball?
You are equating abortion doctors with people who "shoot down" children "in the street." The unborn does not "play ball," and abortionists don't go of their offices onto playgrounds looking for children to shoot.
Ultimately, it is the woman that makes the decision to visit the clinic and have the abortion. It is they who have been granted the right right to abort the fetus, not the doctors.
LM - i don't wish to promote any killing, but i cannot deny the morality of what Paul Hill did. In the end, it may be necessary for groups opposing abortion to do all they can to make abortion unavailable, even if it is legal.
"i don't wish to promote any killing..." You certainly favor it above other means as a way to achieve your goal. I still think that is horrible.
Paul Hill only contributed to even more "suffering." Do you know what the Federal government did in response to Hill's actions? They strengthened security at abortion clinics. Why? To uphold Supreme Court law.
Hill's action was self destructive. Through him, the movement cut off its nose to spite its face. There's nothing admirable about that.
LM - Are you aware that right after Paul Hill's heroic defense of children was reported in the news, fewer women ventured near abortion "clinics" to have their children executed, and enrollment to study abortion procedures dropped off? Fear of attacks on abortion clinic staff and property is adding to insurance costs, which raises the cost of each abortion, and discourages many women from having abortions?
The number of reported abortions have decreased since 1991, long before Hill's crime. Enrollment to study abortion procedures has decreased, not only because of protests, harassment, and murders, but also because being an abortion doctor doesn't pay much in comparison to other medical professions.
In fact, one medical council even required it's residents in obstetics and gynecology to take lessons on abortion procedure to make up for this loss (unless they have a moral or religious objection.)
Insurance costs may also have increased, but then, most medical services nowadays have become more expensive.
It is generally accepted that abortion rates are falling not because of anti-abortionist protests, doctor shortages, or violence, but because of political, economic, and social factors.
LM - Former Abortionists who have a change of heart contradict you on a number of points. Some possible reasons for "drops" in the rate of surgical abortion: less women in the age range of those likely to become pregnant (their mothers' generation had fewer children due to birth control and abortion), an increase in the use of birth control (some abortifascient forms, so that total abortions may be more than before).
LM - Pro-'bort activists sometimes claim anti-abortion violence is having a huge impact on the professional childslaighter business when they want more laws and enforcement of laws protecting childslaughter. But, other times they claim antiabortion violence has little or no effect, because they do not want to encourage more forceful direct action.
Those suggested factors are unsubstantiated, and, once again, the definition on the "beginning of life" is not concrete and universal.
At any rate, neither point contradict what I have said, unless you want to show how social, economic, and political factors are not responsible for the decline in abortions.
I'm only interested in what the data says. Non-partisan analysts agree that violence has not had a significant impact in the decline of abortions.
LM - "the definition on the "beginning of life" is not concrete and universal." Of course not! But I prefer the self-evident definition from my public school biology class. ' Non-Partisan'? Who's "non-partisan"?
Non-partisan in this case would include researchers with no prejudice for either side of the issue.
In other words, they are less likely to distort the data for their own agendas.
You might be able to convince them otherwise if you were able to provide evidence of a sharp decrease in reported abortions following Paul Hill's act. Bu the graphs I've seen so far don't support that.
LM - what IS clear - if more who oppose childslaughter actually believed in the rights of preborn children and had the self-sacrificial courage to act upon their convictions, then they would not depend so much on unlikely political solutions.
Right...because if there's any comparison between Sojourner Truth and your "hero," it's that they are both murderers and both openly espoused violence as the best way to achieve their goals.
LM - Trouble is - pacifism (too often becoming "passivism") leaves societies open to those who remain willing to use force in an unjust manner to achieve unjust ends. Whether just or unjust, the use of force (and implied threat of force) by unions, some environmentalists, Irish anti-British activists, and Palestinians has given them real influence, even some respectability.
I've yet to research union violence, but the remaining groups you mentioned have not met their goals even after decades of violence and many organizations within them are marked as terrorist groups and looked down upon by the world community, even amongst their peers.
Do you really want your movement to be viewed in the same light as these organizations?
LM - "Do you really want your movement to be viewed in the same light as these organizations?" As long as it seems "reasonable" for most people to consider legalized murder of innocent children tolerable, then public opinion ceases to be a useful norm. You have dismissed views other than yours as not "sane" and somehow "extremist" without giving attention to the substance of those views.
There is no substance to your views. For the past five days, you have given excuse after excuse to justify your pro-violence apologetics and each one did not stand up against even minor scrutiny. Despite this, you maintain a position that you yourself cannot factually support just because you "believe" it to be the "best" choice.
I fear that ExtraGarlicNow is inflexible in mind on rational thought and extremly labble temporaly. Such a pity that this essence is incable of grasping basics, their vougage is very limited.
LM - Are you an absolutist pacifist? Do you recognize a difference between guerrilla actions and "terrorism"? Guerrilla actions target a genuine threat, terrorists target innocents.
This has less to do with pacifism and more to do with me being sane enough not to view the world in black and white and see violence as the favored option when I have a disagreement with another human being.
"Do you recognize a difference between guerrilla actions and 'terrorism'?"
That line is blurred. This is because I'm not an extremist.
LM - Do you have any problem with the implied threat of violence which empowers the police during every arrest? Do you object to the cold-blooded violence of abortion itself? Are there any "blacks and whites" in your indistinct moral universe? Is your moral comfort zone defined primarily by your perception of how OTHERS feel/think about any issue?
Question 1 is irrelevant and loaded. Questions 2 and 3 are also loaded questions.
I'm guessing question 4 is more rhetorical than anything else because of how vague it is. What do you mean by "others?" How would you be able to gauge what something as complex as morality is "primarily" based on?
LM - This vid clip, starring evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is taken from VIRUS OF FAITH. Dawkins has previously put forth the hypothesis that the human mind can be infected with something comparable to computer viruses (he calls these "memes"). By his thinking, religions are "memes", intangible but real mind viruses.
LM - Does Dawkins' idea open up a new rationale by which totalitarian regimes could suppress free speech out of "concern" that a "mind virus" (any idea that inconveniences the regime) could spread?
I don't think totalitarian regimes need any rationale to do anything they like. They just do what they want.
If you are trying to tie the United States into this, you are forgetting that several Supreme Court Cases such as New York Times Co. v. US, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Comm. School Dist., TX v. Johnson, and Cohen v. California have all ruled in favor of free speech in situations involving free speech against the government.
Didn't you say earlier that you prefer the definition of "beginning of life" based on a PUBLIC school biology class? Isn't that an admission that you base your definition of life on what the "totalitarian regime" who wants to be a "theocracy of state-worship" says?
AL - Doesn't what? Hold to wacko materialism and truly insane disregard for the intrinsic rights of the preborn? Dawkins, whatever his credentials, is an anti-preborn bigot.
EGN I would explain it to you but to an intelligent person it would be clear! Now why on earth are you comparring Dawkins here! The digussion is about some sick mad man, who you feel is your hero! I would rather have nothing to do with the likes of you and after reading your continous and repetative dribble I have decided to exclude you from any further comment!
L.M. - But "the movement" distances itself from those who, like Paul Hill, actually act as if real human individuals are unjustly killed in each abortion. And perhaps 3-5 times as many preborn embryos are killed in "silent abortions" by IUDs and the standard birth control pill. The IUD prevents the newly conceived child from attaching to the lining of the uterus, so it dies and is reabsorbed. The birth control pill can act similarly if conception occurs.
Good for them. They should distance themselves from an unstable man like Hill, who was willing to use murder on anyone in his way and pass it off as "justifiable."
As for IUD's and birth control pills, it's one thing to talk about heartbeats, pain reception, viability, etc. Now you are talking about an embryo that is not even a week old. Remember, not everyone agrees on what constitutes the beginning of "human life."
LM - Surgical abortion and the silent abortions caused by the IUD and the Pill may (at the low end of likely estimates) have killed 200 million human individuals who would otherwise be our fellow U.S. citizens. This is killing on a genocidal scale protected by the civil authorities who have a natural obligation to protect those within their jurisdiction against unjust aggression. Their co-operation in this slaughter has something of the moral character of civil war.
"Surgical abortion and the silent abortions caused by the IUD and the Pill may (at the low end of likely estimates) have killed 200 million human individuals who would otherwise be our fellow U.S. citizens."
How is this figure calculated? Who came up with it? Does it include the usage of IUD and pills to prevent conception? Why are these figures at the "low end?" Do you have any specifics of where I can find the source of this estimate?
LM - i am not particularly religious myself, but i have visited your channel and wonder if you acknowledge that state-sponsored secular agnosticism is a religion? by effectively ruling out any higher authority than the feds, the federal guv'mint becomes "god". the USA is becoming a theocracy of state-worship.
LM - do you acknowledge that requiring parents to school their children without providing them directly with the funds to do so forces their children into government-run schools which promote the religion of secular agnosticism? everyone is then taught to think the way the government wants them to think, so the government is, in effect, "god".
I don't condone shooting abortionists, but the interviewer has no knowledge on fetal developement. The babies the doctor aborts aren't tiny embryos, they're fetuses with arms and legs and that looking like humans.
Actually, abortions take place at all different times of development of the unborn child, but most women abort while it is still an embryo (or even a zygote).
Kill me now, or back when I was a zygote or embryo - in any case, I'm the one being killed!
My humanity is not contingent on my size, number of cells, degree of consciousness or intelligence, capacity to feel pain, location, condition of dependency, or how "wanted I am.
Oh I know that, my reply was to 00patty, who seemed to be under the impression that most abortions take place when the unborn has reached the fetal stage, which is patently untrue.
Now, about your humanity. Based on your statement, do you think that we should put chimeras (people born as the result of two fertilized eggs fusing) on trial for murder/kidnapping? After all, the inferior zygote/embryo that was reabsorbed didn't choose to be enslaved by the superior one.
Nope, but dead is dead, isn't it? Even factoring in lack of adulthood, such a person could easily make it into juvenile courts for involuntary manslaughter. Of course, that's only if we're actually going to treat the unborn as people from day one. Come to think of it, if we did that, then any woman who miscarried would likely face the same charge (unless of course the miscarriage is ruled to be due to negligence, in which case a harsher sentence would be imposed).
Though you do leave out a number of legal/moral concerns (awareness of the nature of an act, being one - few people believe that a person with a severe mental incapacity can be held fully responsible for his/her acts), you are on to something. As Farrell points out in THE MYTH OF MALE POWER, there is a strong bias that treats men as adults and women as perpetual infants, so that until recently, women have usually not been charged and sentenced as severely as men for the same "criminal" acts.
pro aborts have violently attacked pro lifers . check it out on u tube. all you gotta do is look at the videos on u tube of pro aborts attacking pro lifers.
it's about fucking time someone like paul hill stood up fought these bottomfeeding pro aborts back . I am glad he made these baby killers taste death.
hill was a hero. I am not a christian but I am soooooo happy that someone was brave enough to stand up to the baby killing pro abortion butchers . I am so glad he turned john britton into worm food.
I am not sure if there is a heaven but paul hill deserves to be in paradise IF there is such a place.
paul hill did a wonderful thing , he protected the preborn from the baby killing butcher. I hope someomne else does the same thing again.
the preborn are just as human as we are. we can agrue in circles about words like baby or fetus but the fact still remains that these butchers are killing human offspring. they dehumanize the preborn so they can justify killing them for selfish reasons.
nazis , the kkk and pro aborts all remind me of each other. the nazis dehumanized the jews, the kkk says that black people are not fully human and the pro aborts dehumanize and devalue the life of the preborn .
A doctor kills uborn babies a minister kills a doctor, Forida killsa minister. Americans are completely fucked up.
63champ 1 year ago
irony, bloody irony
applesauceinmyear 2 years ago
View number 666!
mcjollyman 2 years ago
if you were in a burning buliding with a 2 year old and ten frozen embroys and could you only save either the tray or the child, who would you save? I think most people would save the 2 year old. I know nothing like that is even going to happen but it does make you realise that we do place more presedence on life that is already consious.
emmajpatton 2 years ago
Not going to bother on the worth of the lives in a single frame. To kill an adult is to steal so much more.
Think about it as if it were an investment -- this will be called cold, but non-the-less. A child is cared for across years, a taxing investment. Preparing an individual for adulthood. Everything in life costs energy, even dev. relations. To kill an adult is to steal from society so much potential that an unborn child simply lacks. Not hire vs not pay for work -- possibly wrong vs wrong.
blackheart32006 2 years ago
killing a kid is stealing society soo much potential too...
Kerrryx 2 years ago
Never said abortion was right, but this is certainly not an acceptable way to deal with it. This is the sort of behavior that would remove credibility from such movements if repeated too often.
blackheart32006 2 years ago
Robbing a woman of her liberty to control her reproduction and forcing her to remain pregnant is kind of stealing from society as well...it actually kind of makes society quite savage and demented. But, you can hang on to your argument and keep thinking that it's valid.
MisterPrice1 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong - I fully agree that a woman that became pregnant without chosing for it means a big big problem too. But telling her to remain pregnant never is the same crime as telling her to kill her unborn child.
Kerrryx 2 years ago
This brings me back to 'Give me liberty of give me death.' Life, without certain liberties, is arguably worse than death. Therefore, to rob a woman of her liberty to control her reproduction (1st trimester only of course) is worse than allowing her the choice to terminate the pregnancy and hence end the life of the fetus. Of course abortion kills- everyone knows that. But it is a justified death so there really is no problem. Death penalty kills too, but it's justified. That's how I see it.
MisterPrice1 2 years ago
There is no such thing justified death by humans. Nobody has the power or status to decide about the life of somebody - not even a pregnant woman. Also, I disagree that the life of a pregnant women (that did not want to be pregnant) is worse that death. If you re-read that sentense carefully you will hear the contradiction: a terrible life still is life whereas death remains death.
Nevertheless I am not denying that a pregnancy can be horrible under certain circumstances.
Kerrryx 2 years ago
Paul Hill obviously believed what he did was right--He went to his death quietly and dignified.
the abortionist killer killed the babykiller! I have no qualms about that.
Sreggaematic09 2 years ago
Some of the things I find so extraordinary about Paul Hill and his supporters (some of whom I've had contact with) : (1) genuinely compassion for those in need, (2) intellectual integrity (3) courage.
Dawkins may be extraordinarily intelligent, but he abuses his intellect with his wacko materialism and truly insane disregard for the intrinsic rights of the preborn.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Simplly put mate. I don't believe you!
I am not calling you a liar, but I feel that you grip on reality is a little loose!
arnicalupus 2 years ago
Thank You Paul Hill for your defense of innocent children in danger of being murdered!
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Sorry ExtraGarlicNow but Mr Hill is no longer receiving mail at this address! You will have to try using a traditional medium or another form of superstitious mumbo jumbo to try to contact anything that may remain of that sick individual!
BrutusCass 2 years ago 2
Paul executed a murderer.
1776iscoming 3 years ago
Hypocrite!!!!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
It takes no appeal to religion for me to agree wholeheartedly with you. PAUL HILL IS A HERO FOR OUR TIMES.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Paul Hill was not a hero. He was just a man that wanted to kill. Evidence? He used a shotgun and wounded an abortion doctor's wife. Shotguns are notorious for collateral damage, so your "hero" didn't care who he killed.
Beskargam 3 years ago 2
And they are concious and self aware.
00patty 3 years ago
You have proof? Just a question? I mean more concious and self aware than the meat sitting on many a table?
BrutusCass 3 years ago
I'm often not conscious and self-aware before my first cup of coffee in the morning...
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Twp wrongs can never make a right and any who believe that they do has fail to understand. Coffee is use full, but do not forget that caffeine is a drug and that substance abuse weakens the rationality of ones thought. Sorry to point this out, but well maybe deeper thought on a wider vision of the world may improve you.
BrutusCass 3 years ago
But you're missing the point entirely, the killing of a practicing abortionist isn't a "wrong". In fact, by not acting to defend these threatened children, you and I collaborate to some degree in their murders.
Study up on caffeine. Thank whatever god may be that my vision of the world is not so narrow and my heart so cold and shriveled up as yours clearly is.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
MY Dear misguided Friend. First I have studied such things! I would hardly tell a toxicologist that deadly night shade is not a poison, for that would demonstrate ignorance. Now as to your other misunderstanding, where on earth do you get your claim that it is I who is cold and shrivelled of heart? It is not I who is justifying the death of others!! that is you my friend! If the only responce to a problem that you can think of is to kill others, then you are a very sad individual indeed!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
Sorry, but your demonstrable ignorance on "poison" is already getting you off track. Vitamin A in too high a dosage is a poison, deadly nightshade in small amounts can actually be therapeutic.
Your preference for the life of a serial killer, child abuser, paid hit person, abortionist over the lives of many children is sub-zero, cold-blooded.
The direct, intentional killing of the preborn child is NEVER necessary.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
/ExtraGarlicNow, first learn to read the words and then understand them, do you understand English?
Your ignorance and arrogance makes you a poor and dangerous fool!
I have not given preference, I have stated that there is no justification for killing! Whereas you are fixated on it.
My poor friend you are plainly sick!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
BrutusCass..... You are al too easy to understand.
You pose as an ABSOLUTIST PACIFIST who believes lethal force is always bad.
Sick!!??, Well, I do have a blister on my big toe.
Tell me, if you'd had a chance to kill Hitler or Stalin, would you have done so? There is never any justification for kiling? Would you ever kill to protect your own child or spouse?
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
That very comment just show how little understand of me or anything else.
Your shows your ignorance!
If there had been no Hitler or Stalin do you really believe the world would have been saved from such pain? The real problem is never the individual it is the puss of humanity which you are part of! Of course you will chose to take this as an insult rather than taking the time to understand it, I will say it again you are a sick fool! Seek heal in wisdom, not hate.
BrutusCass 3 years ago
O1 and before your ignorance causes you to foolish respond Yet again. There is a difference between the PACIFIST who refuses to fight and those you know how to fight and chose the battle carefully. And then there is the Mad idiot who sees red a runs in like a FOOL!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
Sorry, dude, I didn't realize you were in such bad shape. I don't make fun of the handicapped. But most civil jurisdictions will help you get back on your meds even if you have little or no income. Hope it goes well for you. All the best.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
You are something! (shakes head) You are incapable of even taking your argument seriously, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I should not have expected better really.
Please continue in your ignorance, for there is no help for those who chose to be blind and foolish!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
BC - I do not take YOUR argument seriously.
I can't afford to. Prior to a respectful burial, I've held an 8-10 wk old aborted girlchild in my hand. I've been one of the peaceful sit-in protesters at an aborticide death house, while pro-'borts pelted us with used condoms, and one friend was threatened with a needle a pro-bort had jabbed himself with (he said he was going to give her HIV).
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Again two wrongs do not make a right!|
So these other people are also animals, I view you both the same just waving different flags!
It is the Black and white thinkers of the world who cause all the wars!
The Hitlers and Stalins have there role, but it is the fools who follow them who are responsible! (or better) to blame because they are irresponsible!
BTW there's a whole world outside! They like yourself are a danger to humanity! If you still fail to see this then I have no sympathy for you!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
Who wants your sympathy? A little sane rationality would be refreshing. Can you at least admit that induced abortion is homicide?
Hitler & Stalin were able to accomplish their horrors because too many people were not extreme enough to oppose them. So long as the trains run and there are bread lines, we'll ignore the death camps and enforced mass starvations of others.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Can you admit that blowing anyone away with a shot gun is wrong from any moral stand point? I see it as six of one and have a dozen of the other. Two little kids in the play ground pulling each others hair and calling names.
Now if they just stop that and work out how the game is play and how the mistakes can be avoided then things would run a lot smother.
As for Homicide are you talking of the legal definition or the concept behind the words?
To kill man. now where do you draw the line?
cont
BrutusCass 3 years ago
BC - Ideally, it would be great if "conflict resolution" dialog actually worked without some implied threat or leverage. Would we all just play nice if there were never any consequences for doing otherwise? Without the possibility of deadly force being resorted to by presumed civil authorities, would there be an increase or decrease in general social violence?
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
BC - Actualy, I can think of situations where it would be grossly immoral to refrain from using a shotgun to blow someone away.....for example, a drug-crazed nut who just broke into my house and threatening my wife & daughter (a hypothetical situation since I'm gay and highly unlikely to marry a woman and have children). By refusing to act, I could wind up a moral accessory to the murders of my wife & child. What's the diff. between pacifism and "passivism"?
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
I could risk my own life in hand-to-hand combat, but that is a less effective defense for myself and the rest of the household. I could try to reason with the wild-eyed and screaming trespasser, but he's already shown he isn't reasonable....,he broke into my house and is talking about raping my baby girl, then killing her. Yeah, I'm going to talk to him all right -- BANG BANG!!
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
(and I don't even like guns)
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
BC - "BTW there's a whole world outside!"
And don't I know it! Sad, isn't it, that between 1/3 and 1/4 of children inside the womb will be killed before they can enjoy the "whole world outside".
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Yes and just how many children are killed every day by bullets? These are the ones that have seen the world outside and only just tasted the joy of youth! Why don't you defend all life and not just that which you USE as your reason for existance!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
BC - Are between 3000 and 4000 children in the USA killed daily by bullets? More children in this country die annually in swimming pools than from bullets. Worldwide, abortion is, by far, the #1 killer of children. AND IT"S LEGAL. I don't think it is legal to shoot children, as a rule. You have a weak sense of proportion, or are not using what you've got.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Killing abortionists may not be the only solution to abortion, but it is the best and most effective one I can think of. Plus, the problem that these murderous fiends, abortionists, remain alive IS THE PROBLEM! Killing is sometimes a praiseworthy thing, a great good, when those killed are practicing maniacal serial killers of children.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
"Killing abortionists may not be the only solution to abortion, but it is the best and most effective one I can think of."
Disgusting. I would never trust my child in your care. I hope no one else will have to either.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LittleMachiavelli - but would you trust an abortionist to care for your child? would you trust a person who advocated a "right" to kill children in the womb to care for your child?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
I would never entrust the care of my child to a person who feels that murder is the best way to achieve ones ends. In your case, to end abortion.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - how is it "murder" to kill a serial killer of children (an abortionist) whom the civil authorities refuse to restrain? it is "justifiable homicide", not murder, to kill in defense of self or others whose lives are unjustly threatened.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Supreme Court law has stated that bans on abortion are illegal. Thats why government authorities have no obligation to arrest them.
If you dont like what the courts say, then why not advocate a change in the law rather than violence? Why not devote your time to conclusively prove that human life begins at a certain point? It does not help your cause to be express enthusiasm with extremists like Paul Hill.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
L.M. - a change in laws is desirable, but cannot save the lives of those scheduled to be murdered by abortionists tomorrow. NEWS FLASH - social evils begin long before the laws against them are enacted.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
If you can't change the legal guidelines that dictate what is "unlawful," "life" and "human," then how can you convince society that abortion is the "unlawful killing of a human being" and therefore murder?
To promote the killing of abortion doctors while downplaying any effort to change laws regarding the unborn does nothing to give recognition to any "rights" the unborn have.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - you confuse public education with saving lives. public education on the nature of human life and the reality of abortion is a "means", the end is to save the lives of children who reside in wombs. the laws may never change, but the work to save preborn children's lives will continue.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
I don't know where you got the idea that I was confused.
"...the work to save preborn children's lives will continue."
I won't argue with that. But violence against abortion doctors will do nothing in the long run to save the unborn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you oppose all abortions under ALL circumstances.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
L.M. Of course I oppose ANY direct and intentional taking of innocent human lives. Can you think of a circumstance that would make it morally reasonable to shoot down a 5 year old in the street as she played ball?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
You are equating abortion doctors with people who "shoot down" children "in the street." The unborn does not "play ball," and abortionists don't go of their offices onto playgrounds looking for children to shoot.
Ultimately, it is the woman that makes the decision to visit the clinic and have the abortion. It is they who have been granted the right right to abort the fetus, not the doctors.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - i don't wish to promote any killing, but i cannot deny the morality of what Paul Hill did. In the end, it may be necessary for groups opposing abortion to do all they can to make abortion unavailable, even if it is legal.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
"i don't wish to promote any killing..." You certainly favor it above other means as a way to achieve your goal. I still think that is horrible.
Paul Hill only contributed to even more "suffering." Do you know what the Federal government did in response to Hill's actions? They strengthened security at abortion clinics. Why? To uphold Supreme Court law.
Hill's action was self destructive. Through him, the movement cut off its nose to spite its face. There's nothing admirable about that.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - Are you aware that right after Paul Hill's heroic defense of children was reported in the news, fewer women ventured near abortion "clinics" to have their children executed, and enrollment to study abortion procedures dropped off? Fear of attacks on abortion clinic staff and property is adding to insurance costs, which raises the cost of each abortion, and discourages many women from having abortions?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
The number of reported abortions have decreased since 1991, long before Hill's crime. Enrollment to study abortion procedures has decreased, not only because of protests, harassment, and murders, but also because being an abortion doctor doesn't pay much in comparison to other medical professions.
In fact, one medical council even required it's residents in obstetics and gynecology to take lessons on abortion procedure to make up for this loss (unless they have a moral or religious objection.)
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
Insurance costs may also have increased, but then, most medical services nowadays have become more expensive.
It is generally accepted that abortion rates are falling not because of anti-abortionist protests, doctor shortages, or violence, but because of political, economic, and social factors.
You give your "hero" too much credit.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - Former Abortionists who have a change of heart contradict you on a number of points. Some possible reasons for "drops" in the rate of surgical abortion: less women in the age range of those likely to become pregnant (their mothers' generation had fewer children due to birth control and abortion), an increase in the use of birth control (some abortifascient forms, so that total abortions may be more than before).
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
LM - Pro-'bort activists sometimes claim anti-abortion violence is having a huge impact on the professional childslaighter business when they want more laws and enforcement of laws protecting childslaughter. But, other times they claim antiabortion violence has little or no effect, because they do not want to encourage more forceful direct action.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Those suggested factors are unsubstantiated, and, once again, the definition on the "beginning of life" is not concrete and universal.
At any rate, neither point contradict what I have said, unless you want to show how social, economic, and political factors are not responsible for the decline in abortions.
I'm only interested in what the data says. Non-partisan analysts agree that violence has not had a significant impact in the decline of abortions.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - "the definition on the "beginning of life" is not concrete and universal." Of course not! But I prefer the self-evident definition from my public school biology class. ' Non-Partisan'? Who's "non-partisan"?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Non-partisan in this case would include researchers with no prejudice for either side of the issue.
In other words, they are less likely to distort the data for their own agendas.
You might be able to convince them otherwise if you were able to provide evidence of a sharp decrease in reported abortions following Paul Hill's act. Bu the graphs I've seen so far don't support that.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - what IS clear - if more who oppose childslaughter actually believed in the rights of preborn children and had the self-sacrificial courage to act upon their convictions, then they would not depend so much on unlikely political solutions.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
History has shown that such "courageous" actions are counter-effective.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM -" History has shown that such "courageous" actions are counter-effective. "
Yeah, Sure......., and Sojourner Truth didn't carry a gun! (or she only used it to hunt game, LOL)
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Right...because if there's any comparison between Sojourner Truth and your "hero," it's that they are both murderers and both openly espoused violence as the best way to achieve their goals.
'__'
Don't be misleading.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - Trouble is - pacifism (too often becoming "passivism") leaves societies open to those who remain willing to use force in an unjust manner to achieve unjust ends. Whether just or unjust, the use of force (and implied threat of force) by unions, some environmentalists, Irish anti-British activists, and Palestinians has given them real influence, even some respectability.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
I've yet to research union violence, but the remaining groups you mentioned have not met their goals even after decades of violence and many organizations within them are marked as terrorist groups and looked down upon by the world community, even amongst their peers.
Do you really want your movement to be viewed in the same light as these organizations?
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - "Do you really want your movement to be viewed in the same light as these organizations?" As long as it seems "reasonable" for most people to consider legalized murder of innocent children tolerable, then public opinion ceases to be a useful norm. You have dismissed views other than yours as not "sane" and somehow "extremist" without giving attention to the substance of those views.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
"You have dismissed views other than yours as not 'sane' and somehow 'extremist' without giving attention to the substance of those views."
Meanwhile, two months in the past...
"I'm grateful for extremists like Paul Hill, people who put themselves on the line to help those most in need."-ExtraGarlicNow
watch?v=fewKW8G1xyE
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
There is no substance to your views. For the past five days, you have given excuse after excuse to justify your pro-violence apologetics and each one did not stand up against even minor scrutiny. Despite this, you maintain a position that you yourself cannot factually support just because you "believe" it to be the "best" choice.
That's extremism.
We're done here.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago 2
LM - Bye Bye.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
I fear that ExtraGarlicNow is inflexible in mind on rational thought and extremly labble temporaly. Such a pity that this essence is incable of grasping basics, their vougage is very limited.
arnicalupus 2 years ago
LM - Are you an absolutist pacifist? Do you recognize a difference between guerrilla actions and "terrorism"? Guerrilla actions target a genuine threat, terrorists target innocents.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
"Are you an absolutist pacifist?"
This has less to do with pacifism and more to do with me being sane enough not to view the world in black and white and see violence as the favored option when I have a disagreement with another human being.
"Do you recognize a difference between guerrilla actions and 'terrorism'?"
That line is blurred. This is because I'm not an extremist.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - Do you have any problem with the implied threat of violence which empowers the police during every arrest? Do you object to the cold-blooded violence of abortion itself? Are there any "blacks and whites" in your indistinct moral universe? Is your moral comfort zone defined primarily by your perception of how OTHERS feel/think about any issue?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Question 1 is irrelevant and loaded. Questions 2 and 3 are also loaded questions.
I'm guessing question 4 is more rhetorical than anything else because of how vague it is. What do you mean by "others?" How would you be able to gauge what something as complex as morality is "primarily" based on?
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - This vid clip, starring evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is taken from VIRUS OF FAITH. Dawkins has previously put forth the hypothesis that the human mind can be infected with something comparable to computer viruses (he calls these "memes"). By his thinking, religions are "memes", intangible but real mind viruses.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
LM - Does Dawkins' idea open up a new rationale by which totalitarian regimes could suppress free speech out of "concern" that a "mind virus" (any idea that inconveniences the regime) could spread?
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
I don't think totalitarian regimes need any rationale to do anything they like. They just do what they want.
If you are trying to tie the United States into this, you are forgetting that several Supreme Court Cases such as New York Times Co. v. US, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Comm. School Dist., TX v. Johnson, and Cohen v. California have all ruled in favor of free speech in situations involving free speech against the government.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
Didn't you say earlier that you prefer the definition of "beginning of life" based on a PUBLIC school biology class? Isn't that an admission that you base your definition of life on what the "totalitarian regime" who wants to be a "theocracy of state-worship" says?
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
And yours doesn't?
arnicalupus 2 years ago
AL - Doesn't what? Hold to wacko materialism and truly insane disregard for the intrinsic rights of the preborn? Dawkins, whatever his credentials, is an anti-preborn bigot.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
EGN I would explain it to you but to an intelligent person it would be clear! Now why on earth are you comparring Dawkins here! The digussion is about some sick mad man, who you feel is your hero! I would rather have nothing to do with the likes of you and after reading your continous and repetative dribble I have decided to exclude you from any further comment!
arnicalupus 2 years ago
L.M. - But "the movement" distances itself from those who, like Paul Hill, actually act as if real human individuals are unjustly killed in each abortion. And perhaps 3-5 times as many preborn embryos are killed in "silent abortions" by IUDs and the standard birth control pill. The IUD prevents the newly conceived child from attaching to the lining of the uterus, so it dies and is reabsorbed. The birth control pill can act similarly if conception occurs.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
Good for them. They should distance themselves from an unstable man like Hill, who was willing to use murder on anyone in his way and pass it off as "justifiable."
As for IUD's and birth control pills, it's one thing to talk about heartbeats, pain reception, viability, etc. Now you are talking about an embryo that is not even a week old. Remember, not everyone agrees on what constitutes the beginning of "human life."
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - Surgical abortion and the silent abortions caused by the IUD and the Pill may (at the low end of likely estimates) have killed 200 million human individuals who would otherwise be our fellow U.S. citizens. This is killing on a genocidal scale protected by the civil authorities who have a natural obligation to protect those within their jurisdiction against unjust aggression. Their co-operation in this slaughter has something of the moral character of civil war.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
"Surgical abortion and the silent abortions caused by the IUD and the Pill may (at the low end of likely estimates) have killed 200 million human individuals who would otherwise be our fellow U.S. citizens."
How is this figure calculated? Who came up with it? Does it include the usage of IUD and pills to prevent conception? Why are these figures at the "low end?" Do you have any specifics of where I can find the source of this estimate?
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
LM - i am not particularly religious myself, but i have visited your channel and wonder if you acknowledge that state-sponsored secular agnosticism is a religion? by effectively ruling out any higher authority than the feds, the federal guv'mint becomes "god". the USA is becoming a theocracy of state-worship.
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
LM - do you acknowledge that requiring parents to school their children without providing them directly with the funds to do so forces their children into government-run schools which promote the religion of secular agnosticism? everyone is then taught to think the way the government wants them to think, so the government is, in effect, "god".
ExtraGarlicNow 2 years ago
This question is a bit off topic, don't you think?
It's also a heavily loaded question.
LittleMachiavelli 2 years ago
I don't condone shooting abortionists, but the interviewer has no knowledge on fetal developement. The babies the doctor aborts aren't tiny embryos, they're fetuses with arms and legs and that looking like humans.
00patty 3 years ago
I am not trying to put you down here 00patty, but are you aware of that interviewer educational background?
BrutusCass 3 years ago
Actually, abortions take place at all different times of development of the unborn child, but most women abort while it is still an embryo (or even a zygote).
Beskargam 3 years ago
Kill me now, or back when I was a zygote or embryo - in any case, I'm the one being killed!
My humanity is not contingent on my size, number of cells, degree of consciousness or intelligence, capacity to feel pain, location, condition of dependency, or how "wanted I am.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Oh I know that, my reply was to 00patty, who seemed to be under the impression that most abortions take place when the unborn has reached the fetal stage, which is patently untrue.
Now, about your humanity. Based on your statement, do you think that we should put chimeras (people born as the result of two fertilized eggs fusing) on trial for murder/kidnapping? After all, the inferior zygote/embryo that was reabsorbed didn't choose to be enslaved by the superior one.
Beskargam 3 years ago
Are you writing about an intentional act by a fully responsible adult?
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
Nope, but dead is dead, isn't it? Even factoring in lack of adulthood, such a person could easily make it into juvenile courts for involuntary manslaughter. Of course, that's only if we're actually going to treat the unborn as people from day one. Come to think of it, if we did that, then any woman who miscarried would likely face the same charge (unless of course the miscarriage is ruled to be due to negligence, in which case a harsher sentence would be imposed).
Beskargam 3 years ago
Though you do leave out a number of legal/moral concerns (awareness of the nature of an act, being one - few people believe that a person with a severe mental incapacity can be held fully responsible for his/her acts), you are on to something. As Farrell points out in THE MYTH OF MALE POWER, there is a strong bias that treats men as adults and women as perpetual infants, so that until recently, women have usually not been charged and sentenced as severely as men for the same "criminal" acts.
ExtraGarlicNow 3 years ago
pro aborts have violently attacked pro lifers . check it out on u tube. all you gotta do is look at the videos on u tube of pro aborts attacking pro lifers.
it's about fucking time someone like paul hill stood up fought these bottomfeeding pro aborts back . I am glad he made these baby killers taste death.
infidelhillbilly 3 years ago
Nice to see that Anti aborts like yourself are mice stable and polite individuals! I will allow your own words as testimony.
BrutusCass 3 years ago
hill was a hero. I am not a christian but I am soooooo happy that someone was brave enough to stand up to the baby killing pro abortion butchers . I am so glad he turned john britton into worm food.
I am not sure if there is a heaven but paul hill deserves to be in paradise IF there is such a place.
paul hill did a wonderful thing , he protected the preborn from the baby killing butcher. I hope someomne else does the same thing again.
RIP PAUL HILL , you were a a HERO!
infidelhillbilly 3 years ago
Just out of interest, you say that you are not a christian! but don't state you Theological stance! What would it be?
What is the definition of a Baby in your mind?
Why do you get pleasure out of the deaths of others?
You say "he protected the preborn from the baby killing butcher." Do you fail to see the contradiction in your words here?
BrutusCass 3 years ago
the preborn are just as human as we are. we can agrue in circles about words like baby or fetus but the fact still remains that these butchers are killing human offspring. they dehumanize the preborn so they can justify killing them for selfish reasons.
nazis , the kkk and pro aborts all remind me of each other. the nazis dehumanized the jews, the kkk says that black people are not fully human and the pro aborts dehumanize and devalue the life of the preborn .
RIP paul hill the hero
infidelhillbilly 3 years ago
THe bastard he killed wasn't a doctor in any more of a sense Joseph Mengele was a doctor. Doctors dont kill children.
amr857 3 years ago
???? Define Children!
BrutusCass 3 years ago
muzloms are the same
kentuckyboychris 3 years ago
Two Wrongs do not make a right.
BrutusCass 3 years ago