Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[JonSnow4President]

Is this not exactly what the pro-birth crowd is saying?  That what they believe should be law and everyone should be forced to adhere to those beliefs under punishment of law?  Is this not your view as well?  

I'm talking more about the stuff like below.  It's not arrogance to think someone's position is wrong.  It is arrogance to say that a (non factual) position is wrong and presenting your position as fact.  That's not to say we shouldn't seek to change our society's position democratically, and that a law can't be passed deciding the matter.  That's what we sign up for as society.  I'm talking about the attitude directed towards the other side.  The pro-birth crowd is full of a bunch of blowhards that can't form a coherent thought, as is the pro-choice crowd. 

I am not proposing they refrain from speaking strongly so much as strongly and wrongly about a subject.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

 

Let's curb the discussion on what is and what isn't abortion. Stick to the issues surrounding the attack at the PP clinic. Thanks.

 

[/mod hat]

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

You obviously don't really "get it" if your counterpoint to acknowledging that someone views abortion as murder is that you find the alternative to be "distasteful." 

That may sound a little harsh - but you've got your moral case. Make it or don't make it. Don't try to backdoor it through someone else's analysis by suggesting that objections to murder can be overcome by allegations of gaucheness.

I could have worded that better. And fyi I can be too pragmatic. In the sense that I can oppose something strongly while also looking at it as what's best for the whole, not my own view.

Anyways I was just trying to point out that the male view is not as important as the female view, and it would be wise for men to try and see it threw the lense of women's issues.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's distasteful to make major decisions for unborn children when us adults have ever been born.

It's why it's such a difficult (and fascinating) subject.  Depending on your viewpoints, it's right vs right.  I fundamentally believe a woman has a right to her own body.  I fundamentally believe a human has a right to life (although it's not unalienable based on our actions), and many people see the fetus as a human.  

So it's a case of conflicting rights for me.  If you don't view a fetus as a human life with rights, then it's a woman's right to her body vs oppression, and I can entirely see why someone on the other side of that matchup would appear to be a woman-hating asshole to you.  

Got ya. Well I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. At least I can tell you have thoroughly thought out your position, and aren't one of those "the bible said so" types.

[JonSnow4President]

Got ya. Well I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. At least I can tell you have thoroughly thought out your position, and aren't one of those "the bible said so" types.

Raised Catholic, but kind of an agnostic at this point.  If I ever use the Bible as a serious source in any sort of debate not specifically about the Bible or Christianity, please drive to Houston and slap some sense into me.  

Kind of moving it back to on topic, I think it's ridiculous to blame any of the shooting on anti-abortion speech, just like it's ridiculous to blame terrorist attacks on Islam as a whole, just like it's ridiculous to blame J.D. Salinger for John Lennon's death, Regan's attempted assassination, or the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer.  

Given the mass shootings for no other reason than "just 'cause," I really don't care that this one probably had something to do with a highly contested political topic.  The problem is what drives the person to mass shooting.  

[aceluby]

 

I'm talking more about the stuff like below.  It's not arrogance to think someone's position is wrong.  It is arrogance to say that a (non factual) position is wrong and presenting your position as fact.  That's not to say we shouldn't seek to change our society's position democratically, and that a law can't be passed deciding the matter.  That's what we sign up for as society.  I'm talking about the attitude directed towards the other side.  The pro-birth crowd is full of a bunch of blowhards that can't form a coherent thought, as is the pro-choice crowd. 

The point is that this should also be applied to your argument as well, and yet you aren't.  The major problem with what you are presenting is that you want everyone to adhere to your beliefs on a subject that you admit cannot ever be proven to be correct.  

[JonSnow4President]

The point is that this should also be applied to your argument as well, and yet you aren't.  The major problem with what you are presenting is that you want everyone to adhere to your beliefs on a subject that you admit cannot ever be proven to be correct.  

If I have insinuated that anyone is without a doubt wrong about their position, and thus that that position should not use strong words because it will incite violence, I am sorry.  I've tried to show that there are merely sides to this argument that are both equally valid, and are in fact worthy of strong words without being called "wrong" or a right wing nutjob.  I wasn't aware I wrote anything that said abortion is wrong without prefacing that with some conditions about one's beliefs.  

That contentiousness leads to the strong words that are being blamed for the shooting, and one side of that debate was being dismissed out of hand as if they were the South Park "Dey tuk our jobs!" Rednecks. 

[Wise Fool]

Raised Catholic, but kind of an agnostic at this point.  If I ever use the Bible as a serious source in any sort of debate not specifically about the Bible or Christianity, please drive to Houston and slap some sense into me.  

Kind of moving it back to on topic, I think it's ridiculous to blame any of the shooting on anti-abortion speech, just like it's ridiculous to blame terrorist attacks on Islam as a whole, just like it's ridiculous to blame J.D. Salinger for John Lennon's death, Regan's attempted assassination, or the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer.  

Given the mass shootings for no other reason than "just 'cause," I really don't care that this one probably had something to do with a highly contested political topic.  The problem is what drives the person to mass shooting.  

Yes the problem is what drives the person to mass shooting. In this case, it seems as if what drives a person to mass shooting is the belief that the targets are baby butchers. The man is still responsible for his own crimes, so we're not "blaming" in a legal sense, but it's pretty clear that there are certain beliefs about the enemy that people who commit violence have, and this is true in Islamic terrorism as well. One of those beliefs is that the enemy/target is evil (ie, a baby butcher).

[CelticBrennus]

The fundamental issue here is that some people actually think that abortion is killing babies.  The vast majority of people who say that it does clearly dont actually believe it. 

If you actually think that Planned Parenthood and abortions in general are no different then walking into the maternity ward, grabbing a baby and smashing its head against the wall then you are morally obligated to act, and act NOW.  If your moral reaction to a woman walking into Planned Parenthood for an abortion is different then your moral reaction to a mother smothering her newborn then you dont actually think abortion is murder.  Plus, that view walks you down a really nasty set of logical consequences.  Like that every single miscarriage should be investigated by the police as if a body was found on the sidewalk. 

[Stubby]

[MOD]

FFS, folks.

Terra asked you guys to refrain from continuing with the arguments concerning the medical termination of pregnancy.  If someone really wants to start another thread knock yourselves out.

Otherwise, let's remain on the topic, please.

[/MOD]

[TerraPrime]

The fundamental issue here is that some people actually think that abortion is killing babies.  The vast majority of people who say that it does clearly dont actually believe it. 

If you actually think that Planned Parenthood and abortions in general are no different then walking into the maternity ward, grabbing a baby and smashing its head against the wall then you are morally obligated to act, and act NOW.  If your moral reaction to a woman walking into Planned Parenthood for an abortion is different then your moral reaction to a mother smothering her newborn then you dont actually think abortion is murder.  Plus, that view walks you down a really nasty set of logical consequences.  Like that every single miscarriage should be investigated by the police as if a body was found on the sidewalk. 

Just so.

And the slippery point is this:

If the pro-life rhetoric is indeed one that pushes forth the view that "abortion is murder," then is it any surprise that some of the people hearing the message might manage to be convinced? And if they are convinced, then is it not their moral imperative to stop it? And if they have a moral imperative to stop abortions, then is it surprising that some of them will go above the law to stop a great evil? And when this inevitable chain of even comes to happen, is it wrong to critique the rhetoric that started the event? I am not suggesting that pro-life views should be silenced or prohibited, no. I am suggesting that the pro-life movement needs to examine what type of incendiary language it chooses to employ, and be willing to accept some of the responsibility of escalating a difference in political view into the realms of actual violence.

But of course, many in the pro-life camp already think that violence is being committed against the fetuses/babies, so that point is perhaps moot.

[ChillyPolly]

If the pro-life rhetoric is indeed one that pushes forth the view that "abortion is murder," then is it any surprise that some of the people hearing the message might manage to be convinced? And if they are convinced, then is it not their moral imperative to stop it? And if they have a moral imperative to stop abortions, then is it surprising that some of them will go above the law to stop a great evil? And when this inevitable chain of even comes to happen, is it wrong to critique the rhetoric that started the event? I am not suggesting that pro-life views should be silenced or prohibited, no. I am suggesting that the pro-life movement needs to examine what type of incendiary language it chooses to employ, and be willing to accept some of the responsibility of escalating a difference in political view into the realms of actual violence.

Well, if so, perhaps the next step should be to campaign to have a certain best-selling fantasy author revise those writings in which he repeatedly and irresponsibly refers to that disposable lump of tissue, in any and all stages of development, as a "baby" or a "child".  I don't even know how often he does this -- I lost track at 40.  Never once does he use the PC-approved term of medical Latin "fetus".  Perhaps the most irresponsible and inciting passage is this one:

 "You cheated me. You murdered my child within me."
– Game of Thrones, Daenerys IX

Maybe the Colorado shooter read Game of Thrones, and that's what set him off.

I'm being sarcastic of course.  For all I know, GRRM may be "Pro-Choice".  But it seems to me that if he is allowed to use language this, those people who actually oppose abortion should have the same privilege of choosing their words.

   

[Stubby]

Well, if so, perhaps the next step should be to campaign to have a certain best-selling fantasy author revise those writings in which he repeatedly and irresponsibly refers to that disposable lump of tissue, in any and all stages of development, as a "baby" or a "child".  I don't even know how often he does this -- I lost track at 40.  Never once does he use the PC-approved term of medical Latin "fetus".  Perhaps the most irresponsible and inciting passage is this one:

 "You cheated me. You murdered my child within me."
– Game of Thrones, Daenerys IX

Maybe the Colorado shooter read Game of Thrones, and that's what set him off.

I'm being sarcastic of course.  For all I know, GRRM may be "Pro-Choice".  But it seems to me that if he is allowed to use language this, those people who actually oppose abortion should have the same privilege of choosing their words.

   

By this logic everyone should have the right to trial by combat.  We don't of course, because they story is fiction.

[ChillyPolly]

By this logic everyone should have the right to trial by combat.  We don't of course, because they story is fiction.

Nobody is accusing anyone of ACTUALLY advocating criminal violence with their choice of words.  That was never the issue.  It is the use of non-PC language itself that is being challenged.

[CelticBrennus]

The implication is that most of the people using the language of baby killing dont really believe abortion is killing babies, or are moral cowards.  The people who kill doctors and shoot up and bomb clinics are the ones who actually believe that abortion kills babies. 

[karaddin]

Nobody is accusing anyone of ACTUALLY advocating criminal violence with their choice of words.  That was never the issue.  It is the use of non-PC language itself that is being challenged.

If nothing else can we agree that the term PC is thrown around about so much that it's meaningless at this point?

Asking that words are used to mean the thing that the word actually means isn't being PC, it's asking for coherent usage of the language.

[ChillyPolly]

The implication is that most of the people using the language of baby killing dont really believe abortion is killing babies, or are moral cowards.  The people who kill doctors and shoot up and bomb clinics are the ones who actually believe that abortion kills babies. 

So, if someone were to claim they were morally was opposed to the Vietnam War, and the murderous killing that it represented, then your position is that person was a liar or a moral coward unless he tried to blow up a U.S. army barracks or base?   I dunno if Jesus would agree with that.  Ghandi neither.   Maybe not even GRRM.

[Stubby]

So, if someone were to claim they were morally was opposed to the Vietnam War, and the murderous killing that it represented, then your position is that person was a liar or a moral coward unless he tried to blow up a U.S. army barracks or base?   I dunno if Jesus would agree with that.  Ghandi neither. 

And the moral of the story is that when you can't argue against the actual point you argue about something else.

[Stubby]

Nobody is accusing anyone of ACTUALLY advocating criminal violence with their choice of words.  That was never the issue.  It is the use of non-PC language itself that is being challenged.

And this is relevant to what I said how?

I was exposing the flaw in your comparison to a fictional story.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[ChillyPolly]

And the moral of the story is that when you can't argue against the actual point you argue about something else.

Let me spell it out for you.

I am against abortion.  However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence.

The argument that, if I believe as I do, I should bomb abortion clinics, is not my argument, but that other others, who believe in answering violence with violence under a wide array of circumstances.

Using the argument that abortion advocates are cowards and hypocrites if they do not blow up abortion clinics, is not only extremely insulting to other posters you disagree with, but it also comes perilously close to being criminal conduct in its own right:  the advocacy of criminal violence.

It not only insults me, but it insults GRRM, for it implies, believing as he did, he was a coward and a hypocrite for not blowing up army barracks during the Vietnam war.