Murderer of preborn twins caught
Following up on a story from April (read previous posts here and here), from the Associated Press, June 20:
Indianapolis – Police arrested a man early Friday for allegedly shooting a pregnant bank teller during a robbery, causing her to lose her twins.
Detectives charged Brian Kendrick, 29, with attempted murder, two counts of killing a fetus and robbery….
Katherin Shuffield, 30, was five months pregnant when she was shot in the abdomen April 22 after the gunman jumped over her bank station at a branch of Huntington Bank on the city’s east side. She lost the fetuses two days later….
Current IN law allows prosecutors to charge people with murder in cases where a fetus dies, but only if the mother is at least seven months pregnant.
Kendrick would face a possible prison sentence of 20 years to 50 years if convicted of attempted murder. The killing a fetus – or feticide – charges each carry possible sentences of two years to eight years.
[HT: proofreader Angela]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The fifty years plus two eight year sentences would be 66 years. I hope he gets the 66 years. This scumbag doesn’t deserve to ever go free though. I hope he feels really, really guilty about this. I hope the guilt just eats him up.
“Current IN law allows prosecutors to charge people with murder in cases where a fetus dies, but only if the mother is at least seven months ”
That makes alot of sense. (sar).
Not that it matters but an unborn child can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. So they only get 2 years for killing the child? The law is AFU.
“Not that it matters but an unborn child can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks.”
That does matter. It also matters that even though it’s living off of its mother, it is still a human being. Killing it (and abortion is different because it is the mothers body, occurring in her womb) should be considered the same as killing any other human being.
Jess,
how bout if the Mom killed her own twins, how much time should she get?
If they’re inside of her, in her uterus, they’re hers, and she has a right to have them removed. I really didn’t want this to turn into a discussion on my views of abortion, I thought we could all just agree that what this man did was just horrible. Please?
Jess 9:03 PM
I’m sure the only thing he regrets is getting caught. Its highly unlikely he has a conscience and won’t grow one now. You lock up animals like this away and throw away the key.
Jess,
you didn’t answer my question. What if the Mom had her twins killed? by, lets say, shooting herself in the stomach? how much time should she get?
Jess,
Once again you never cease to amaze.
You again render me speechless.
It also matters that even though it’s living off of its mother, it is still a human being.
And in another breath, you say, only the mother has the right to kill this human being. That’s utterly ridiculous, I’m sorry. It’s okay for the mom, but nobody else better try it. For lack of a better term, the logic used here is WHACK!
“…What if the Mom had her twins killed? by, lets say, shooting herself in the stomach? how much time should she get?”
NOT ONE DAY and THE DEATH PENALTY. If she commits suicide by this self inflicted gunshot wound, then the taxpayers would be relieved of the expense of protecting and analyzing yet another murderer. If she survives, a swift and immediate death, no death row stays. Simple, isn’t it?
Jasper, she shouldn’t get any time in jail or any punishment.
I don’t get what is so twisted about my logic, if it is your body, (whatever it is, even if it is a human baby) you should have the right to remove it from your body.
If it is in your body, you should have the right to remove it from your body.
“And in another breath, you say, only the mother has the right to kill this human being. That’s utterly ridiculous, I’m sorry. It’s okay for the mom, but nobody else better try it. For lack of a better term, the logic used here is WHACK!”
@Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Hawt Mama): OR as my mom says: I brought you into this world, and I can sure as hell take you out of it!
My mommy loves me- she really does. ;-p
Think of it, it’s illegal for someone to come up to a person and start touching a person without their permission. But the same person can touch themselves wherever, however, whenever they want because it is their body.
theonlything2fear, can I come up to you and put my hands down your pants? No. Because you have the right to not have people come up to you and put their hands down your pants. It’s the way it should be.
I just wish we had meet on some other blog, you’re all such nice people and I don’t want you to think I’m a bad person : (
Jess,
I don’t think you’re a bad person. I don’t send bumper stickers to bad people.
“theonlything2fear, can I come up to you and put my hands down your pants? No. Because you have the right to not have people come up to you and put their hands down your pants. It’s the way it should be.”
Where does this “right” come from?
Lol, thank you : ) I try and be nice, I think it’s a bit foreign to me though. BTW, I turn 20 at 5:03pm today.
theonlything2fear, oh bad boy, I think you’re hitting on me.
@Elizabeth: Speaking of bumper stickers- thanks for the new one!
“It’s a magical leopluridon Chaaaarliiiieee!”
No problem, Rae. I do what I can.
Jess: FYI, a “2 x 4 x 8” is a piece of wood…(technically it’s One and a half inches thick, by 3 and a half inches wide…and 96 inches in length)but they call it a “2 by 4″…it’s what holding up parts of your house.
Go find one and do as theonlything2fear suggested.
It’ll work.
Every abortion is a scar on civilization wether the baby is viable outside the womb or not. Sucking babies from their mother’s womb in bloody pieces (currently the most common method of abortion) is an intrinsically evil and monstrous thing to do.
Think of it, it’s illegal for someone to come up to a person and start touching a person without their permission. But the same person can touch themselves wherever, however, whenever they want because it is their body.
Posted by: Jess at June 24, 2008 10:41 PM
Jess, that’s why it should be illegal for a woman to kill her baby, becaus it is the baby’s body, not hgers, that she is having torn apart in bloody pieces.
Mike, why does it seem like so many “pro-lifers” resort to violence when someone disagrees with what they believe?
I hope you get the help you need before you start bombing crowded public places like this guy: http://armyofgod.com/EricRudolphAtlantaCourtStatement.html
The “hero” of the “pro-life” movement.
Jess,
I can’t speak for Mike, but my understanding is that they don’t kill abortionists because they disagree with them. Rather they do it because they can’t stand the abortionists killing all those babies day after day.
And why did Eric bomb the Centennial Park? I’m sure not all of the people there were abortionist.
I don’t know Jess? I thought the mission of the AOG was to defend the unborn. In the link you supplied he says he was trying to stick it to the government and chose an idiot way to do it. In my estimation he was “off his rocker” when he did it. No reasonable person who calls themselves Christian could read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rationalize killing in Jesus’ name.
Bye Bye! Y’all be good now ya hear?? I am heading to Texas so I sure brush up I guess!!
See you Saturday. :)
Jess said:
Jess – so if I understand you correctly, the babies are within the property bounds of your body, so therefore they’re your property and you may do as you please with them – Is that right?
I just wish we had meet on some other blog, you’re all such nice people and I don’t want you to think I’m a bad person : (
Jess, you’re not, and pro-lifers know it too. I wish Jill had a chatroom function here so we could all talk.
Carla, good luck on your trip. I hope it works out well for you.
TS and Jess,
The AOG also hates gays and who knows who else. I understand Rudolph also bombed a gay bar.
These are deranged people who terrorize and kill for the sick satisfaction it gives them for whatever “reason” they see fit.
No legitimate PL spokesperson or leader has ever called Rudolph a hero or supported his actions and that of his supporters in any way.
You don’t try to understand people like this or expect any kind of rational thinking or behavior from them.
Jasper: Not that it matters but an unborn child can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks.
Not usually. Once in a great while, but it’s more true to say “cannot survive,” since the odds are heavily that way.
In most hospitals on earth, 22 weeks isn’t even in the ballpark. Even for a extremely well equipped preemie care facility with the best people available, the 50/50 point come later than 22 weeks.
Jess, happy bithday!
How does it feel to be entering your third decade?
Not too bad, eh?
How does it feel to be hitting yourself with a 2″ x 4″ as you do it, then? ; )
Mary, you wrote: “No legitimate PL spokesperson or leader has ever called Rudolph a hero or supported his actions and that of his supporters in any way.”
That depends on your definition of a “Legitimate PL spokesperson.”
Are Catholic priests legitimate PL spokespersons? At least one Catholic priest publically calls on people to kill abortion docs and calls Paul Hill an “American hero” and an “innocent man”. See
http://www.trosch.org
Father David Trosch has not been excommunicated or even defrocked. IMHO, this means that EVERY CATHOLIC IN THE WORLD is to some extent complicit in the murders of abortion docs and clinic workers, and therefore bears a burden of guilt.
Contact the Archdiocese and ask them to excommunicate, or at least de-frock, Father David Trosch, unless he repents of his call for murder in the name of Catholicism.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dmobi.html
From the “quote of the day” box:
the VA court ruling that its partial birth abortion ban placed an undue burden on women and the federal one didn’t
DRF previously had a good comment on this:
DRF: Subtle differences in the Virginia wording put any doctor performing any second-term procedure at risk of criminal liability, while the federal law only criminalized doctors who set out to perform an intact dilation and extraction.
Right – wanting to outlaw the given procedure is one thing, but sneakily trying to enlarge it into an anti-abortion bill is another. Several states don’t have legal restrictions on third-trimester abortions or abortions after viability for the same reason – very poorly-written bills that strayed well outside the original intent due to inept legislators.
The bills don’t get passed or the resultant laws get struck down fast.
Uh-Oh, Mike and 2fear are building a bunch of hurdles out of 2″ x 4″s along Jess’s running route….
“Contact the Archdiocese and ask them to excommunicate, or at least de-frock, Father David Trosch, unless he repents of his call for murder in the name of Catholicism.”
I would agree with you, SoMG. (and for the SECOND time this week; the first was when you said that Jeanne Kirkpatrick looks like a crocodile) This is shameful and horrific, contrary to everything that the church teaches. Although I hate what you do, I am very sorry and shamed that you have to fear for your life.
Just as every Muslim in the world is to some extent complicit in the murder threats against people like Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina.
Not just because those threats are issued by Muslims, but because they are issued by Muslims IN OBEDIENCE TO THEIR “HOLY” BOOK THE KORAN, all who profess that this book is true share some guilt.
And yes, Eric Rudolf did bomb a gay bar.
Just as every Muslim in the world is to some extent complicit in the murder threats against people like Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina.
Not just because those threats are issued by Muslims, but because they are issued by Muslims IN OBEDIENCE TO THEIR “HOLY” BOOK THE KORAN, all who profess that this book is true share some guilt.
Posted by: SoMG at June 25, 2008 9:01 AM
Whoa! Unlike the Catholic Church, there is no central Muslim seat of power. Individual Imams/clerics issue fatwahs. So one cannot paint muslims with such a broad brush.
The analog would be to say that since it was a Christian Church/priest encouraging terror, then all Christians share the guilt. Obviously not true.
Please correct your misconceptions and don’t spread them to others.
Right Phylo. The other thing is, without having spent a lot of time studying the Koran and other Hadith, it is hard to say if certain passages do indeed teach violence like some claim. There may be some passages that APPEAR to teach such things, but it’s hard to say what the true or intended meaning of a passage is without having really studied the faith in its whole context.
phylosopher, in Islam the central authority is the Koran (and hadith)
You wrote: “The analog would be to say that since it was a Christian Church/priest encouraging terror, then all Christians share the guilt. Obviously not true. ”
It WOULD be true though if the Christian church/priest were encouraging terror IN OBEDIENCE TO WHAT IS DIRECTLY WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
I would say for instance that if a Rabbi were to instruct a Jew to kill a child for failing to obey its parents (as the Old Testament prescribes) and the Jew were to follow the Rabbi’s advice, then all Jews who profess that the OT is the literal word of God would bear some responsibility for the murder.
SOMG,
I would consider a legitimate PL spokesperson to be someone like Dr.Wanda Franz, head of NRLC as well as Dr.Mildred Jefferson, former president of NRLC, to name a few.
I’ve never heard of the priest you’re talking about.
I do not consider people expressing personal opinions to be legitimate spokespersons for anyone but themselves, unless an organization has designated them as such.
His statement means every Catholic in the world is to some extent complicit in the murder of abortion docs. Spare me.
I could make the equally ridiculous argument that the existence of the Crips and Bloods makes every black person in the world to some extent complicit in the acts of violence and murder against innocent people.
I see abig difference between Eric Rudolph and
Paul Hill. And unlike Mary I am not sorry abortionists fear for their lives. It is healthy that they do because if they ever committed abortion on one of my minor daughters
I would very likely take “harsh” retribution.
Cest La Vie
TS,
Where did I say I am sorry abortionists fear for their lives?
I stated only that legitimate PL spokespersons have never condoned the actions of Eric Rudolph and do not support violence of any kind, and they don’t.
Mary and TS,
“Where did I say I am sorry abortionists fear for their lives?”
That was me.
So you fear for your life? Now you know how the babies you kill feel.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
Mary, I didn’t say that Father David Trosch’s calls for murder mean that every Catholic is complicit.
I said that THE FACT THAT TROSCH HAS NOT BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED OR DEFROCKED, means that every Catholic is complicit. And it does.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “… I am not sorry abortionists fear for their lives. It is healthy that they do because if they ever committed abortion on one of my minor daughters
I would very likely take “harsh” retribution.”
Hee hee–if you lived in a state with a parental consent or parental notification law, I could show your post to a judge and get a judicial override, which would allow me to do an abortion on your daughter without anyone telling you about it.
SOMG, 11:50am
I know what you said. And I say Catholics who may know nothing of Father Trosch or what he said, I never heard of the man until you mentioned him, are no more complicit for the killings of abortionists because he wasn’t defrocked than black people are for the actions of the Crips and Bloods.
As a white person am I complicit in the racist activities of the klan if I don’t demand they be thrown in prison or somehow punished for saying things I don’t like?
There are all kinds of people who say all kinds of things we don’t like. We are in no way complicit unless we wholeheartedly agree with them or support their violence against another person, place, or thing.
TROSCH
Gimme an “E” and let’s play Scrabble.
Jess,
I don’t mean to pick on you, but I have to pick your brain on this. In the case where someone kills a pre-born baby and in the case where a mother kills her own pre-born baby, the question remains: Is it a human life?
You cannot make the argument that there is any murder involved if it is not a human life. I am assuming then that you must agree it is a human life, a baby, in both cases.
I would conclude then that a pre-born human’s life is less valued than that of its mother.
It is such a tragedy to see that we have gone so far as the categorize the values of human life, just as the slave-traders did, just as the Germans did.
I’m not sorry when an abortionist fears for their life, maybe then they will understand what it is like to be the pre-born baby.
…and I think deep down they know the wrath of God is at their heels.
Mary, your example (Crips and Bloods) is about race. So is your KKK example because you prefaced it with the phrase “As a white person”. Race is a completely different thing from religion. Religion, especially membership in an organized religion, is CHOSEN and therefore incurs moral responsibilities which race does not incur.
If the Bloods and Crips were committing RELIGIOUS violence–explicitly called for by their (hypothetical) holy text and encouraged by officers of their religious organization, then I would say that other members of their religion would bear guilt for their crimes.
You wrote: “I do not consider people expressing personal opinions to be legitimate spokespersons for anyone but themselves, UNLESS AN ORGANIZATION HAS DESIGNATED THEM AS SUCH.” (My emphasis).
When the Catholic Church appoints someone to be one of Her priests, isn’t She thereby designating him as her spokesperson?
The guilt that every Catholic bears comes from the personal decision to remain a member of a church that includes as one of its officers someone who calls for murder in the name of Catholicism. The Catholic Church’s failure to excommunicate or defrock Father Trosch constitutes tacit approval or at least tolerance for his call to murder in the name of Catholicism, and by extension makes everyone who does not leave the Church responsible.
Regarding the KKK, I would say that every member of that organization (NOT every white person) bears responsibility for every murder committed by other KKK members in obedience to the essential principles of the KKK. In order to avoid such responsibility the person must at very least renounce his membership in the KKK.
You plead non-responsibility because of ignorance. I would say it is your duty as a Catholic to inform yourself of the activities of Catholic church officers (priests). Ignorance therefore does not excuse you.
At least one abortion clinic murderer/terrorist was a practicing devout Catholic when he committed his murders; in fact he shouted as he shot his victims: “This is what you get. You should pray the Rosary!” (I guess it could be argued that Jon Salvi can no longer be considered a Catholic because he committed suicide, which I believe incurs latae sententiae excommunication. But he certainly was one when he committed his murders.)
Do you really WANT to share the blood and flesh of Christ with a man who issues murder warrents in His name? Until he is excommunicated or at least defrocked your Eucharist is polluted. If you had a piece of Jesus’ feces, would you eat it?
Jamers, a baby/fetus is a human being. The thing is, it is inside of another persons uterus. Since it is her uterus, she has the right to remove its contents, or even the uterus itself, if it suits her.
Jamers, a baby/fetus is a human being. The thing is, it is inside of another persons uterus. Since it is her uterus, she has the right to remove its contents, or even the uterus itself, if it suits her.
Darn, what is with these double posts?
Jess,
You make it sound so harmless using the word “removal” as if she were just placing the baby someplace else, not murdering it.
Even our pets are treated with more respect. We may have a pet as personal property, but there are laws to prohibit killing them without cause.
So essentially, murdering another human is not wrong as long as it is done inside the mother under her control?
SoMG, in my quest to find a the right religion for myself I found that almost every religion has some nut that commits atrocities in their name. It seems like we should do away with organized religion, but for many its a security thing, a community thing. As an early Christian once stated, “Christians share everything except their wives.”
I wouldn’t condemn the entire Catholic Church for these nuts. Although it’s really easy to just throw the blame at them : )
Jamers, you wrote: “So essentially, murdering another human is not wrong as long as it is done inside the mother under her control?”
Not only is it not wrong, it’s also not “murder”.
“The Catholic Church’s failure to excommunicate or defrock Father Trosch constitutes tacit approval or at least tolerance for his call to murder in the name of Catholicism…”
There are all sorts of things that do not incur the penalty of excommunication, and the CC in many, many, many, many places abhors murder. This jerk is no different.
“…and by extension makes everyone who does not leave the Church responsible.”
This doesn’t follow at all.
” he committed suicide, which I believe incurs latae sententiae excommunication”
It may have been at one time, but I can’t find this. I’m pretty sure suicide doesn’t incur a canonical penalty.
“Do you really WANT to share the blood and flesh of Christ with a man who issues murder warrents in His name? Until he is excommunicated or at least defrocked your Eucharist is polluted.”
No, that is not correct. This is a heresy from around the fourth century known as Donatism which said that the validity of the sacraments depends on the personal disposition of the priest. That view has been condemned by the church for the last 1600 years or so.
SoMG,
When is it murder then? What conditions must take place in order for an act to be murder?
Jamers, our pets don’t live in our bodies. If the mothers life was dependent upon the baby, or when it got older and became an adult and the mother needed a kidney transplant to live and the child just said no would that be murder? Should we take away the child’s right to keep their kidneys?
Jess, you wrote: “I found that almost every religion has some nut that commits atrocities in their name.”
Agreed, but not every religion tolerates such a nut AS A CHURCH OFFICER.
Just as the main beef against the Catholic Church in the pedophilia scandal is not that priests committed acts of buggery but that She failed to get rid of those priests upon learning about them.
SoMG:
This is really old news – (I don’t believe anyone has presented this information yet.)
From wikipedia: “Father David C. Trosch is a former priest in the Roman Catholic Church who is famous for publicly advocating the murder of abortion providers in the name of Catholicism. He first attained notoriety when he published a drawing of a man holding a gun to the back of an abortion doctor performing an abortion titled “Justifiable Homicide”. [1] [1]. He then made an appearance on Geraldo, where he further argued his position on abortion and murder. As a result of his views, the archbishop of the archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama suspended his faculties as a priest. He currently runs a non-profit organization called Life Enterprises Unlimited based in Mobile [2]. He currently vehemently opposes the film Juno and believes it ought to be banned.”
“Trosch is a sedevacantist who accuses the current Pope of heresy.”
References: Holmes, Parker. “Priest says killing abortion doctors ‘justifiable homicide’.”, The Mobile Register, 1993-08-15. Retrieved on 2006-11-25..
Sorry stupid comparison? I can’t use the “stupid teenager” excuse now, and now I’m too old to ever get married : / And my biological probably just ran out of time.
It finally happened, I turned 20.
SoMG:
Your 1:09: post is not worth reading, I barely skimmed it.
Get off your high-horse about morality, please.
*biological clock
Jamers, to kill a person who is locating himself or part of himself inside your body without your continuing permission, or who is taking material (oxygen, nutrients, water, some large molecules like transferrin which cross the placenta intact) from your bloodstream without your continuing permission, or who is injecting metabolic end products into your bloodstream against your will, or who is going to subject you to major medical/surgical trauma against your will, is self-defense (justifiable homicide) not murder.
You wrote: “What conditions must take place in order for an act to be murder?”
One such condition: the act must not be self-defense.
Jess:1:29: SoMG, in my quest to find a the right religion for myself I found that almost every religion has some nut that commits atrocities in their name. It seems like we should do away with organized religion, but for many its a security thing, a community thing. As an early Christian once stated, “Christians share everything except their wives.”
I wouldn’t condemn the entire Catholic Church for these nuts. Although it’s really easy to just throw the blame at them : )
Happy Birthday, Jess. Excellent point here. You are very “smart” now that you are 20 yrs. old. ;-)
Janet, you quoted: “As a result of his [Father David Trosch’s] views, the archbishop of the archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama suspended his faculties as a priest. ”
This is true but he has not been defrocked; he is still entitled to call himself a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, according to him, his views are not “personal views” but the true views of the Church according to scriptures and catechisms correctly interpreted.
Janet, you wrote: “Your 1:09: post is not worth reading….”
That’s OK, it wasn’t addressed to you. But I am curious: Why isn’t it worth reading? What part of it do you disagree with, and why?
Jamers: I would conclude then that a pre-born human’s life is less valued than that of its mother.
Sometimes that is exactly the case, i.e. it’s unwanted.
It is also two different situations – the mother is not inside the body of a person.
You wrote: “What conditions must take place in order for an act to be murder?”
SoMG: One such condition: the act must not be self-defense.
It would have to be illegal in the first place, too.
SOMG,
Do you argue that all Muslim people are complicit in the crimes of Muslim terrorists who are encouraged by certain Muslim clergy and supposed teachings of the Koran? Are you just as adamant that all Muslims are complicit in the acts of Muslim terrorists and the Muslim clergy who support them by being members of their chosen faith?
Do you argue that as members of a religion whose clergy are not all condemning violence, they are complicit in the violence?
Uh SOMG, I’m not Catholic. I said I never heard of the man.
A priest is a member of the clergy of the Catholic faith. He is not the spokesman, he should be representing his faith. I am a member of the hospital staff, I am not the hospital spokesperson, I do represent the hospital.
Priests have frequently, if I recall, expressed dissenting opinions concerning the church. Some call for allowing marriage, some call for more political involvement, some call for more work with the poor. They are expressing their own opinions, not speaking as church spokesmen.
You make a point of John Salvi being Catholic. This proves what?
Janet, 1:42PM
What a hoot! Thanks for looking that up. I’m embarassed I didn’t think of that.
SOMG, 1:55PM
Come on SOMG, Janet called you on this one. The man isn’t allowed to have a church or practice as a church officer. Who cares if he’s defrocked or not?
That’s the point SOMG, its HIS view that these are the true views of the church. The man is expressing HIS opinion, he’s not a church spokesman. Like it or not the man can believe what he wants and we do have freedom of speech in this country, however much we dislike what someone says.
Jess,
Allowing a person to die due to natural causes is very different from getting in Nature’s way to end a life. If you think at all that the child not giving up their kidney is wrong, then how much worse it is for someone to intervene and physically cause the unnatural death of another person, especially someone who cannot protect themselves.
As a white person am I complicit in the racist activities of the klan if I don’t demand they be thrown in prison or somehow punished for saying things I don’t like?
There are all kinds of people who say all kinds of things we don’t like. We are in no way complicit unless we wholeheartedly agree with them or support their violence against another person, place, or thing.
Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2008 12:20 PM
Mary:
Your analogies could use some work. A member of any religious organization is there voluntarily -when they find enough that they disagree with or despise – they have two ethical choices – seek to change the practice from within, or cease association, i.e. quit.
Being white or black (race) isn’t a choice or something one can quit.
Jess wrote:
“SoMG, in my quest to find a the right religion for myself I found that almost every religion has some nut that commits atrocities in their name.”
Did you ever check out the Unitarian Church, Jess?
Phylosopher 8:35PM
My point was that the fact we share a race, religion, or ethnicity with someone who says despicable things does not make us complicit.
I was trying to get that across to SOMG, who had the ridiculous idea that all Catholics are complicit in the killing of abortion docs because a priest was supposedly not reprimanded for his support of someone who killed an abortionist.
In fact the priest was reprimanded and discharged from his duties.
I pointed out how ridiculous the claim of complicity by Catholics was by making other comparisons.
Unfortunately people of all races, ethnicities, and religions will be held as “complicit” in the actions of those of their members involved in criminal activities, violence, gang warfare, support of terrorism, etc.
Its called prejudice. SOMG gave an excellent example by his statement concerning Catholics.
LOL Jess. Happy birthday. :)
Phylosopher 8:35PM
My point was that the fact we share a race, religion, or ethnicity with someone who says despicable things does not make us complicit.
I was trying to get that across to SOMG, who had the ridiculous idea that all Catholics are complicit in the killing of abortion docs because a priest was supposedly not reprimanded for his support of someone who killed an abortionist.
In fact the priest was reprimanded and discharged from his duties.
I pointed out how ridiculous the claim of complicity by Catholics was by making other comparisons.
Unfortunately people of all races, ethnicities, and religions will be held as “complicit” in the actions of those of their members involved in criminal activities, violence, gang warfare, support of terrorism, etc.
Its called prejudice. SOMG gave an excellent example by his statement concerning Catholics.
Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2008 8:59 PM
………………………………..
Religion is not without choice Mary. Ethnicity/race is without choice.
You choose to support a club that harbors all manor of criminals.
Prejudice? That would be an opinion based without knowledge. The RCC is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. It is common knowledge.
Show me one country that the Vatican has invaded and prospered.
Sally, 9:54PM
Prejudice can also be defined as unreasonable feelings, opinions, and attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, ethnic or religious group.
Thank you for giving us an excellent example of prejudice.
Race and ethnicity may not be a choice, but that does not prevent people from being unfairly branded as “complicit” in the actions of people of certain races and ethnicities, i.e. Arab terrorists, the crips and bloods, and the Italian mafia to name a few.
To suggest all Catholics are complicit in the killing of abortionists because one priest said something, for which he was reprimanded and discharged from his duties, is as absurd and bigoted as suggesting all Arabs are complicit in terrorism or all Italians are complicit in organized crime.
Jamers, a baby/fetus is a human being. The thing is, it is inside of another persons uterus. Since it is her uterus, she has the right to remove its contents, or even the uterus itself, if it suits her.
Posted by: Jess at June 25, 2008 1:20 PM
Jess, no responsibility for willing participation in the act that placed baby in uterus to begin with? The difference is that you didn’t make a choiced that put your uterus
in your body. You do make a choice that puts the baby in your uterus. And once conceived the killing of said baby is not humane. Abortion is immoral and goes compl;etely against the normal instincts of caring and compassion that mother’s feel for their babies.
SoMG: Janet, you wrote: “Your 1:09: post is not worth reading….”
That’s OK, it wasn’t addressed to you. But I am curious: Why isn’t it worth reading? What part of it do you disagree with, and why?
It wasn’t worth reading because it happened to follow your pointless, inflammatory post of 8:54 AM. I can’t answer the rest because as I said, I didn’t read your 1:09 PM post.
Jess: “SoMG, in my quest to find a the right religion for myself I found that almost every religion has some nut that commits atrocities in their name.”
That can be said of just about every family, nationality, and country in the world as well. :) Shall we separate ourselves from them all?
Mary:10:31: Race and ethnicity may not be a choice, but that does not prevent people from being unfairly branded as “complicit” in the actions of people of certain races and ethnicities, i.e. Arab terrorists, the crips and bloods, and the Italian mafia to name a few.
To suggest all Catholics are complicit in the killing of abortionists because one priest said something, for which he was reprimanded and discharged from his duties, is as absurd and bigoted as suggesting all Arabs are complicit in terrorism or all Italians are complicit in organized crime.
Excellent post!!
Hee hee–if you lived in a state with a parental consent or parental notification law, I could show your post to a judge and get a judicial override, which would allow me to do an abortion on your daughter without anyone telling you about it.
Posted by: SoMG at June 25, 2008 11:54 AM
Like I would give crap if you got a judges order first. There would be hesitation in carrying out justice, and I wouldn’t bother getting a judges permission. Mutilate my daughter and my grandchild and the reaper would visit within minutes. It would be all business and you wouldn’t see it coming. You can get away it just cause it is legal? Think again. Just like if somebody raped my daughter. According to the Supreme Court ruling today rapists could not be executed for their crime. You should understand Somg, I wouldn’t look for a judges permission to pur an end to said rapist either. Do you really think a judges order or a governments law would protect scum like abortionists and rapists from a father who sees the daughter he loves mutilated or molested. Maybe you can’t see it because you never had a daughter that you loved as much as I love mine. Do you understand now?
Should have read:
There would be NO hesitation in carrying out justice, and I wouldn’t bother getting a judges permission.
Hee hee–if you lived in a state with a parental consent or parental notification law, I could show your post to a judge and get a judicial override, which would allow me to do an abortion on your daughter without anyone telling you about it.
Posted by: SoMG at June 25, 2008 11:54 AM
Judicial override, on what grounds? Hurt feelings? That’s a great reason to allow an abortion (NOT).
Sad Eyed Sally.
The old anti-Catholic bigot always returns to her family roots
The RCC is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. It is common knowledge.
Show me one country that the Vatican has invaded and prospered.
Such statements with no facts is always the mark of a bigot whose history lessons are always confirming the bigotry learned at the teat of her mother and grandmother and great grandmother.
Imagine this bigot,Sad Eyed Sally debating her anti-Catholic philosophy at Oxford.
With a sneer and guff so begins Sad Eyed Sally.
” The RCC is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. It is common knowledge.
Show me one country that the Vatican has invaded and prospered.”
Stunned silence is broken by laughter and then calls to remove this fool bigot from Oxford debates forever.
Even today’s Oxford scholors of history have admited that their accepted orthodoxy of the Spainish Inqusition was entirely sourced on a bigot named Canon Lorente, who was the last Secretary of the Inquisition in Madrid who had access to the archives of the Inquistion.
This is the source from which all myths that milions died in the Inquisition, and which fuels the anti-Catholic bigot Sad Eyed Sally.
Today modern historians such as Henry Kamen of Oxford, admit their original sources for facts of the Inqusition were nothing more then propaganda.
The reason for the propaganda was quite simple. England was passing off propaganda against Catholic Europe and fueling the fires of hate in France to Spain and beyond. Get those nations to fight amongst themselves while England prospers off thier “religious infighting” within those two nations.
I site one source to deny the myths of Sad Eyed Sally’s bigoted history lessons and challenge this anti-Catholic bigot to name one professor of history to back her bigoted history lessons she is propagating at this site.
But for fun and giggles.
A question to the anti-Catholic bigot.
1. How many people were “relaxed” in the city of Toledo from 1483-1485?
2.What does the word “relax” mean or is defined as?
3. Sally KNOWS NOTHING of the word “relax” and the definition of “relax”.
4. Sad Eyed Sally knows that hundred of thousands were tortured and murdered by the Inqusition.
Although no sources shall be sited, but bigoted anti Catholics, with no degree at any university except maybe the university of the KKK history department at Know Nothing U.
5. Sad Eyed Sally knows that Catholics exterminated natives of Mexico and actually all South America as a fact.
6. Sad Eyed Sally actually thinks that 500 Spainish soldiers can actually conquer and then commit genocide of a group of natives south of the USA, which numbered in the low millions in population.
7. She thinks that of Iraq war today and that we have “conquered” Iraq also, and genocide is being committed at this very moment.
There ain’t nothing you can do when Sad Eyed Sally has made up her bigoted mind to spread myths and propaganda as truth.
.
Janet, any reasonable fear that the parent will respond to the daughter’s abortion with violence (against anyone) is pretty much universally considered grounds for a judicial override where there are parental notification laws. The only part that might be difficult would be convincing the judge that “truthseeker” was not just talking smack.
Somg,
I think keeping the abortion decision away from a parent who loves his children only exascerbates the probability of violence. But I guess nobody really knows how they would react to violence against their children. Read the Parental Notification Act below. It was “unanimously” voted into law by the Illinois General Assemly thirteen years ago but still to this the law is not being enforced due to the efforts of Planned Parenthood, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Senator Barack Obama. \
This Act may be cited as the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.
Sec. 5. Legislative findings and purpose. The General Assembly finds that notification of a family member as defined in this Act is in the best interest of an unemancipated minor, and the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further and protect the best interests of an unemancipated minor. The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long?lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long?range consequences. Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.
How about one of the BHO supporters who thinks they are compassionate and moral explaining to me why you support of Barack and Michelle Obama who are so idealogically in bed with PP that they won’t even support legimate restrictions on certain types of abortion like PBA, won’t allow laws assuring parental oversight of their childs pregnancy, and won’t even support laws protecting the rights of babies born alive in botched abortions. Obama is a real master of deception. See how he came out yesterday saying he disagreed with the Supreme Court decision not to allow States the use death penalty against child rapists. Yet he has already made it clear that those types of liberal judges are the only ones he would nominate for the bench….Hmmmm
Sounds like he is either really stupid or really naive or just a dirty hypocrite who doesn’t mind using deception to try and appeal to some of the people like the Christian faithful who are publicly bound to support life. I have a question for Barack and or any of his Christian supporters who claim to “live” the faith every day and not just talk it; how do you rationalize devotion to the Lord of unconditional love with PBA or killing babies who are born alive just because the mother didn’t want them to begin with? I can’t believe a sick puppy like BHO has goten this far in the presidential race. It is no wonder he wants to avoid the town hall debates with McCain.
ts: 2:50 AM: This Act may be cited as the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.
Sec. 5. Legislative findings and purpose. The General Assembly finds that notification of a family member as defined in this Act is in the best interest of an unemancipated minor, andthe General Assembly’s purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further and protect the best interests of an unemancipated minor. The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long-lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long?range consequences. Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.
Excellent clarification, ts.
SoMG,
A judge will not override a parent’s wishes and allow an unemancipated minor’s baby to be aborted to placate an abortionist. Obviously that is not the point of parental notification laws.
SoMG, you said:
“Jamers, to kill a person who is locating himself or part of himself inside your body without your continuing permission, or who is taking material (oxygen, nutrients, water, some large molecules like transferrin which cross the placenta intact) from your bloodstream without your continuing permission, or who is injecting metabolic end products into your bloodstream against your will, or who is going to subject you to major medical/surgical trauma against your will, is self-defense (justifiable homicide) not murder.”
Ok lets start with permission. Permission is such a whimsical word, it can be given and taken away. I could just suddenly decide that my 8th month old no longer has permission to live in my house and leave her out on the street, because its my house, my property. But I can’t do this, because my child is my responsibility. Funny how permission can suddenly be trumped by responsibility.
But lets start from the beginning. 99% of pregnancies are consented. When a woman decides to have sex, it is then that she is giving permission for life to be made inside of her and assuming she does get pregnant, she has just made herself responsible for another human’s life. She could be responsible for this life until the child is old enough to take care of him or herself, but wait you believe that all of this can change if a woman just decides the baby doesn’t have permission to live inside of her.
So when she suddenly decides the baby no longer has permission to be there, then she can do whatever she pleases with the baby, right? She could have someone cut off all of its fingers and toes just because she wants them to. But I guess what usually happens is she just murders the baby (I can use the word murder here because you already admitted it as homicide, though in your words justifiable homicide).
So she justifiable commits homicide, but wait.. we forgot about the other person in the picture. What about the rights of the baby? Did the baby give her mother permission.. or more accurately the abortionist permission to suck his or her brains out? (and these fetuses do have a will to live. I know you’ve seen ultrasounds of babies struggling as they are being torn apart).
Ok so about this self defense you talk about:
Self Defense
1. the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one’s own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3. an act or instance of defending or protecting one’s own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.
Ok assuming we are dealing with number 1 or 2, if this is the act of defending one’s self, I doubt very much that an abortionist could argue in court that they were defending the mother from being physically attacked by the baby. What would he say? “The baby.. just came out of no-where. And… he was…. OMG alive! We didn’t know what else to do.. so I just stabbed the baby in the back of the head before he could do anymore damage to the woman”.
Besides this so called self-defense argument cannot be used if the other person (the baby) is not intending the mother any harm.
Also to reply to Doug,
You said in for abortion to be murder it would have to be illegal.
This is just ignorance. If our government suddenly decided it was no longer illegal to go on a killing spree, would that suddenly not make it murder?
great post Jamer at 1;52.
It goes back to pro aborts owning the fetus, a separate human being is “owned” by the mother and can murder the human being if the mother wants to murder the unwanted human being.
Slavery is back, and being defended by those that own human beings is a right of every female born. Human beings are “living personal property”. After SOMG has the mother sign some papers giving ownership of the human being to SOMG, he murders the unwanted human being. That is why SOMG is burdened with the remains of the human being as refuse. Question? Why do abortion doktors not cremate the human refuse? Evidently it is economically cheaper to not burn the remains of the human being to ashes.
yllas:2:40: great post Jamer at 1;52.
Ditto. The “OMG alive!” line deserves Quote of the Day status!
yllas:2;40: Why do abortion doktors not cremate the human refuse? Evidently it is economically cheaper to not burn the remains of the human being to ashes.
I believe the Aurora, IL Planned Parenthood Abortuary has their own incinerator. :-(
Jamers: You said in for abortion to be murder it would have to be illegal.
Right, since murder is a legal term. No matter how much you don’t like something, that alone doesn’t make it “murder.” It has to be against the law, in the first place.
…..
This is just ignorance.
Well, it’s really just you confusing murder with what you have objections to, here, and that’s not true.
…..
If our government suddenly decided it was no longer illegal to go on a killing spree, would that suddenly not make it murder?
What if our gov’t decided that the killing of enemy soldiers on the battlefield was not murder? Yes, it has to be illegal, despite your farfetched hypothetical.