response 9 of 209:

Jul 11 17:35 UTC 2003

I don't advocate murder..even misguided doctors who have been indocrinated
to believe that a "fetus" is just tissue. I am not serious.
I did it because I knew it would expose your liberal hyprocrisy.
If I kill a doctor who practices abortion..then I AM a murderer.
If that doctor kills an innocent baby in it's mother's womb then he's a hero.
We should honor and respect human life in every form.
When you support abortion you fail to respect and honor life.

response 13 of 209:

Jul 11 17:58 UTC 2003

sabre, in #0 you advocated murder - and now you say you weren't "serious".
So, if someone took your advocacy in #0 and went out and murdered a doctor,
you would disclaim any responsibility because you were not "serious"? 

You are the one that is hypocritical. You say we "should honor and respect
human life in every form", and yet, what about the thousands of innocent,
or even combatant, people we deliberately killed in executing the war in
Iraq, or the people we kill with the death penalty, or the people others
kill in self defense. None of those is honoring and respecting human life
in every form. The fact is, we make *choices* and give people the moral
license to kill with no prejudice or penalty. We think nearly nothing of
it. The same must be true for the right of women to control their own
bodies. They should not be made slaves to society just because their
bodies can support a fetus.

The *ethical* course is to make pregnancy only possible with the full
license and will of the woman, without coercion, much less by force. But
society is very far from implementing this, and in fact the illiberals
actually oppose giving women these rights.

response 15 of 209:

Jul 11 18:37 UTC 2003

rcurl...I damn sure would. Any moron that one go kill someone because it was
allegedly "advocated" in a lame ass bbs should take total responsabily for
his own actions. You sound like a goverment censor that wants to determine
the kind of movies made,songs written and videos game played. In forum such
as this one can play "devil's advocate" all he wants. I guess you think that
the beatles are responsable for Charles Manson's helter skelter killings.

About the innocent people we "deliberately killed"..that's pure bullshit.
Your argument is tangent and the analogy weak.
I am talking about true innocence...an unborn baby in the womb.
Go post that babbling in the conspriracy thread. Pregnancy IS only possible
with the full license and will of the woman. All she has to do is use a dildo.

response 17 of 209:

Jul 11 19:06 UTC 2003

Of course I do...She gave full her lincense when she opened her fucking legs.
She made her choice and exercised her WILL. 

response 19 of 209:

Jul 11 19:14 UTC 2003

<Begin Counter-Troll Mode>
So what's the big deal about killing an unborn baby anyway?  There's no
shortage.  The world could do with a good deal fewer new babies.  If you
abort a 6 month old fetus, what the heck, it only takes six months and a
modest amount of effort to replace one.  We only think babies are precious
because we are programmed by evolution to want to care for our little ones.
It's part of survival of the species.  But the species is in no danger of
dieing out and that particular evolutionary impulse is not 100% appropriate
in a world where overpopulation is a bigger issue.  Killing a baby is more
of  a crime against the parents, than it is a crime against the fetus.  The
fetus is hardly a thinking being at all.  A gerbil has more awareness.  If
the parents have all sorts of hopes and aspirations for the fetus, and an
emotional attachment to it, then nobody should have the right to deprive
them of their baby.  It's a pursuit of happiness thing - lots of people
find children vital to their happiness, so they have a right to have them.
But if the parents don't want it, then it has no value to anyone, and
aborting it is the best outcome all around.
<End Counter-Troll Mode>

response 21 of 209:

Jul 11 19:18 UTC 2003

Re #17:  I guess you do read what you right.  My next theory is that you
 don't get out of your barrel much.

response 23 of 209:

Jul 11 19:20 UTC 2003

<troll mode off>
What? Come on man. By that reasoning you could justify killing some of the
6 billion people who have been born. After all they are easily replaced.
Lets start with the retarded and the handicapped. Then we can kill off people
when there are too old to be useful anymore. And THEN..we can kill everyone
who disagrees with us.   Get real. That "fetus" is a human being.
<troll mode on>

response 25 of 209:

Jul 11 19:27 UTC 2003

Re 23: No, that reasoning would not support killing the handicapped, at
least not the vast majority.  If a person was a complete vegetable, so
that they had no functioning self-awareness, no consious hopes or desires,
and if there were no loving friends or family who wanted the person alive,
then that reasoning would permit the person to be killed.  Why not?

response 27 of 209:

Jul 11 19:51 UTC 2003

Respect for human life is so... so...  *liberal*.  :)

response 29 of 209:

Jul 11 20:58 UTC 2003

Start taxing them, too.