Famous late term abortionist George Tiller shot and killed

The dude was gunned down in cold blood at his church. He doesn't need any more sympathy. As I said in my first post, there was so much over the top hyberbole, I was injected actual discussion in the thread, what little place that has in the red room these days not withstanding.

If you're not personally seeing to the adoption of unwanted babies and offering to relieve the tax burden for citizens who don't want to support them, you have no business opposing abortion. The problem is not gonna go away just because you wave your "Condemn promiscuous women as whores and force teenagers to raise babies to teach them a lesson about 'consequences'" wand. You don't get to remove one option you don't like without replacing it with something at least as practical.

There are going to be unwanted pregnancies. This is a fact of reality, and denying it is a special blend of extreme sanctimony and idiocy.
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT IT?

It's an abortion debate. You're not going to get anything but over-the-top hyperbole, with a little trolling thrown in for the lulz. That's why I pretty much don't get involved in these threads. I know where I stand, and I know that my stance isn't going to change. Futher exploration of that stance on here is, frankly, a complete waste of time.

Anyway, RIP Dr. Tiller.

Hey my wife and I have tried to adopt a child for years.

Either sex, any race.

We get brushed off because

A) We already have one child.

or

B) We don't have enough money to game the system.

But even if we were not wishing to adopt, people that oppose abortion are not obligated in any way to personally care for children resulting from unplanned pregnancies.

There is nothing morally wrong with telling women (and the men whom impregnate them) "this is your responsibility, you take care of it, WITHOUT harming the baby in any way."

RIH Dr. Tiller. RIH

Rot in hell, yes?

Not very Christian of you, Dayton.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/abortion-opponents-discouraged-doctors-murder/

Are you sure that's why? I'm adopted, and my parents didn't have very much money.


I understand potential adopters are required to submit character references. Do you ever think that might be where things fell apart?

I sure hope they didn't spend too much money since they wound up taking the afterbirth home instead of the baby.

Isn't it obvious this whole unpleasant affair could have been avoided if all pastors were forced to keep a loaded uzi in a hollowed out Bible on the pulpit?


mm

O I know that it's none of my business--but should someone close to me decide to consider abortion (not happening right now, by the way), I will be hard-pressed to form an objective opinion.

Holy shit! A missmanners sighting!

Whine really, really hard on teh intranets.

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=71357

I'm a Christian actormike

But I'm not Jesus.

I'm just a man who is royally pissed off at the idea of a man building his fortune on murdering babies just moments away from birth.

And though I would never encourage anyone to commit murder. Nor murder anyone myself, I'll be damned if I cry false tears and muster fake sympathy for such a person.

God can judge him now.

His is the only one that really counts.

Oh please.

My wife and I come from two highly regarded families. Neither of us have ever been accused (let alone convicted) of a crime.

What more would you want?

Utter bullshit.

"if you are not personally opening a business and employing those on welfare you have no business complaining about it."

"If you are not personally going to the middle east and negotiating terms of peace you have no business opposing war"

"If you are not personally taking on the burden of feeding and housing death row inmates you have no business opposing the death penalty"

All are as logical as your statement.

Except, of course, for the blindlingly obvious fact that your cartoon character stereotype of abortion opponents isn't remotely an accurate representation of the majority of pro-life opinion.

I could just as easily say that all prochoicers are evil eugenicists who want to see the offspring of the underclass killed off (like Margret Sanger, by the way) but that would be equally bullshit as what you just said.

Which is of course vastly different than PERSONALLY going out and adopting them.

Who denies th\ere are going to be unwanted pregnancies?

And, by the way, kindly point out to me even ONE pro-lifer who is opposed to the liberalization of adoption laws to greatly increase it's availability in these situations.

What is this, Victorian England?

How does one have a "highly regarded family" these days?

1. Being able to keep a job for more than seven months.
2. Only hitting your wife once.

Not at all.
I've yet to run into the pro-lifer that gives the slightest molecular fuck about a born person.

I can actually believe Dayton in this case. I've heard from too many people that the US makes you go through so many loops and hurdles to adopt that unless there's absolutely no other option or if one is just that passionate about it, it's just easier to get pregnant. Even with IV.

Up to the exact point of actively interfering with a woman's efforts to obtain an abortion.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it's insufficient. You're not[/] "telling them to take responsibility" simply by preventing them from having an abortion. Guaranteeing that it is born doesn't ensure that anyone will take responsibility for it, and while you have no responsibility for a situation you didn't create, what do you do when the parents refuse to take responsibility? You can punish them all day, and it still won't do anything for that baby, because you can't force someone to care. Are you willing to take the "not my problem" mentality to the extreme point of allowing that child to die of neglect? If not, then the options are either support it yourself, or take my money to support it, and you have no right to make that commitment on my behalf.

I wouldn't go that far. I've never met the prolifer with a coherent view on life or who didn't, on some level, seek to control women's sexuality, but that doesn't mean they're insincere. Sure, the inevitable result of their views as policy is to fuck over the born and shame and punish the slutty slutty sluts, but if everyone who denies the obvious consequences of their actions is a moral monster rather than just willfully ignorant then even I'm nowhere near cynical enough to be a realist.

Utter bullshit.

Considering my first job lasted nearly NINE YEARS.

My third one FOUR YEARS.

And my second teaching/coaching job was for THREE years and only ended due to Reduction in Force.

Why not?

The govt. already takes your money to support things you don't agree with.

It takes my money to support things I don't agree with.

That is the nature of having a government in the first place.

If I can get the govt. to support more of my things than your things. Then well, you are the loser in the market place of ideas.

Better luck next time.

A dishonest tactic. You're ignoring the part where the anti-abortion crowd claims to fight for the life of the child. If that is the case, simply forcing a mother who doesn't want it to give birth hasn't accomplished the goal. You can say "adoption" like it's a magic word, but there seems to be a disconnect somewhere between supply and demand, and remember, you don't get to take my money to make up for it. So, are you willing to see a baby die as long as it's not due to an abortion, or not?

So give me the correct portrayal, rather than just belaboring how wrong mine is.

I'm still waiting for that ideal alternative. The baby is born, the parents don't want it, adoption isn't cutting it and children cost money. Now what?

Well great, that's a start, but tiny symbolic victories aren't enough. You're no better than a doctor who performs even one abortion if you're willing to see even one baby die of neglect for your ideals.

Oh, all right, I was fishing for amusing negs.