The Energon Pub

I cannot express without fear of banning just how damn mad I am right now!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090531/ts ... meabortion

I just want to get on a plane, fly to America, and slap this bastard in the face! Sure, there's no way to now why he did it, or what his feelings were on the matter. Tiller had his fingers in a lot of pies and could have pissed any number of unsavoury characters off. But chances are, the bugger who did this marches under the banner of "anti-abortion".

As a Pro-Lifer I am so damn angry. I couldn't stand Tiller or what he did, but I for one, think there are other ways to get my point across without actually blasting someone's brains out in their church.

Not to mention the grief his family, friends, fellow church goers, and collegues will be feeling.

The shooter, there's mention of a suspect, whether he's guilty, we'll just have to wait till the trial. But if he is guilty, I hope they turf his arse in jail for the rest of his life. Not only has he done massive damage to a family, if he did this for the "babies", he's done them more harm then good by making the movement that is invested in their safety and the lives of their mothers, he's set us back years.

Me, I was really hoping Tiller would wake up one morning and become another Bernad Nathanson.

I'm pro-life, too, and the fact that he did late-term abortions makes it worse for me. My stomach rolls at the thought of abortion that I can't really put together an intelligent post about this.

I'm Pro-Choice, though I can see where the Pro-Lifers are coming from and where they'd have problems with abortion. And I gotta say, shooting a man, in a Church, no less, isn't going to help anyone see your way of thinking.

Shadowman wrote:I'm Pro-Choice, though I can see where the Pro-Lifers are coming from and where they'd have problems with abortion. And I gotta say, shooting a man, in a Church, no less, isn't going to help anyone see your way of thinking.

No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

I think the shooter's logic may have been "this guy murders babies, so it's okay if I murder him."

Unfortunately for the shooter, "eye for an eye" doesn't count as justifiable homicide.

Shadowman wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

I think the shooter's logic may have been "this guy murders babies, so it's okay if I murder him."

Unfortunately for the shooter, "eye for an eye" doesn't count as justifiable homicide.

True dat.

Tweezy wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

I think the shooter's logic may have been "this guy murders babies, so it's okay if I murder him."

Unfortunately for the shooter, "eye for an eye" doesn't count as justifiable homicide.

True dat.

Not in American justice at least, for which I'm thankful. Self defense is still the only justifiable allowance.

I must raise another point though. I cannot emphasize enough that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are invalid descriptions of the two sides of the abortion debate. First, only those against all form of death (war, capital punishment, etc.) are truly "Pro-Life". Second, everyone who supports democracy is fundamentally "Pro-Choice". Both terms, in my opinion, are brands applied to this debate as means of persuasion and are at this time 20 years after their inception more harmful than good when trying to hold a discussion solely around "should doctor's be allowed to perform abortions?"

It seemed important to say the above as a response to the irony of the shooter being Pro-Life. Nothing more to say after that though - babies are unborn, a man lay dead, and it is tragedy from every perspective.

Wingspan wrote:

Tweezy wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

I think the shooter's logic may have been "this guy murders babies, so it's okay if I murder him."

Unfortunately for the shooter, "eye for an eye" doesn't count as justifiable homicide.

True dat.

Not in American justice at least, for which I'm thankful. Self defense is still the only justifiable allowance.

Not everywhere. here in Ohio they throw you in jail even if you kill someone in self defense. Except you don't go up for murder, it's manslaughter. And you only get a couple of years.

I must raise another point though. I cannot emphasize enough that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are invalid descriptions of the two sides of the abortion debate. First, only those against all form of death (war, capital punishment, etc.) are truly "Pro-Life". Second, everyone who supports democracy is fundamentally "Pro-Choice". Both terms, in my opinion, are brands applied to this debate as means of persuasion and are at this time 20 years after their inception more harmful than good when trying to hold a discussion solely around "should doctor's be allowed to perform abortions?"

It seemed important to say the above as a response to the irony of the shooter being Pro-Life. Nothing more to say after that though - babies are unborn, a man lay dead, and it is tragedy from every perspective.

I just wanted to quote that because I agree 100%, and as far as I'm concerned there isn't a better explanation.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I'm Pro-Choice, though I can see where the Pro-Lifers are coming from and where they'd have problems with abortion. And I gotta say, shooting a man, in a Church, no less, isn't going to help anyone see your way of thinking.

No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

FYI the moment you kill someone you stop being "pro-life".

I had a friend, God rest his soul, who despite some of our differences on ways to go about resolving this debate, basically he supported blowing stuff up et cetera and if he was still alive he'd be dancing a happy dance at the moment, at least he had the decency to not refer to himself as "pro-life", he said he was "anti-abortion".

Just Negare wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

FYI the moment you kill someone you stop being "pro-life".

Yeah, that's why he said it was ironic...

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Just Negare wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:No, it isn't. Ever. I find it ironic in a tragic way that a pro-lifer decided to shoot someone.

FYI the moment you kill someone you stop being "pro-life".

Yeah, that's why he said it was ironic...

I noticed.

I just felt the need to spell it out - you'd be amazed at the amount of people out there who actually associate Pro-life with domestic terrorism.

Just Negare wrote:
I just felt the need to spell it out - you'd be amazed at the amount of people out there who actually associate Pro-life with domestic terrorism.

Ah yes. point taken. And pro-life is used for the abortion debate, but to be "pro-life" means to support the existence of life, in any shape or form, right? As in, against the death penalty, against animal euthanasia, and whatever other way life is extinguished on this (or any) planet. It's really sad that people do not understand this. They use "pro-life" for its influental effects, rather than what it actually stands for. Like I said, I do not declare which side I support, because (this is kind of ignorant) I don't care. I'm never going to need an abortion, and I will not give a woman a reason to get one. If I ever get a girl pregnant unplanned, I will want her to have the baby and even if she doesn't want it, I will raise it, because it is a life I had a hand in creating. But if a woman I have no associations with one way or another gets pregnant and wants to get rid of the baby, whatever. Her choice. So i am not sure if I can say which side of the issue I'm on, because it's not clear even to me what I support.

Rodimus Prime wrote:So i am not sure if I can say which side of the issue I'm on, because it's not clear even to me what I support.

I used to be on the fence too, probably in the same way. I took a side when I had a baby. Babies change a whole lot of perspectives.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:So i am not sure if I can say which side of the issue I'm on, because it's not clear even to me what I support.

I used to be on the fence too, probably in the same way. I took a side when I had a baby. Babies change a whole lot of perspectives.

Well, if I ever get there, I'll probably decide as well.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Well, if I ever get there, I'll probably decide as well.

Quite possible. Everybody has their different opinions and experiences. Some decide and some don't. This was the event that helped me decide, but it might be different for others.

I'm pro-choice as an abortion can be something positive. I mean if a woman got raped I don't think she would enjoy the thought that part of her rapist is growing in her and uses her as life support.

but if I got someone pregnant I would want to keep the baby unless it was found out that I, my wife/GF and the baby had aids then I would want to abort it just to shield the poor thing from a slow agonizing death.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I'm pro-life, too, and the fact that he did late-term abortions makes it worse for me. My stomach rolls at the thought of abortion that I can't really put together an intelligent post about this.

In regards to Tiller performing late term abortions, supposedly he only did them when there was something horribly wrong with the baby. I can't say that it makes his actions any more right or wrong, but it is something I think needs to be acknoleged.

My sister and some of her friends met the guy a few years ago at some feminist event or something, so this whole thing feels a bit personal I guess.

Dead Metal wrote:I'm pro-choice as an abortion can be something positive. I mean if a woman got raped I don't think she would enjoy the thought that part of her rapist is growing in her and uses her as life support.

There's a neat study, its like victims vs. victors or some such, its too late and I'm too lazy to go dig it out, which kind of disproves teh whole "raped ladies want abortions" theory. Plus, less then 1% of rapes end in pregnancy, and 97% of abortions are for "social reasons" so its kind of a moot point. >_<

but if I got someone pregnant I would want to keep the baby unless it was found out that I, my wife/GF and the baby had aids then I would want to abort it just to shield the poor thing from a slow agonizing death.

Just a little side note, there are medications which are highly effective at preventing the tranmission of HIV accross the placenta. Transmission of such usually takes place during a vagainal birth, so it is more then possible, and its in the vincity of 90%+ that the child won't be infected by the virus.

its actually quite interesting science really.

And HIV stopped being a terminal illness a long time ago, as long as people are compliant with meds its pretty much a chronic illness. Of course, its not if you live in some po-dunk country where the pharamacutical giants get all pedantic and protective of their drugs being made into some generic 1c a pill kind of thing.

Blastback wrote:
In regards to Tiller performing late term abortions, supposedly he only did them when there was something horribly wrong with the baby. I can't say that it makes his actions any more right or wrong, but it is something I think needs to be acknoleged.

I'd laugh if I didn't know how full of sh1t Tiller was. A few years back Tiller's PR lady dropped a bomb shell when she let slip that the majority of abortions were on healthy women with healthy babies.

People dont' seem to understand medicine. LTA take about 5 days to perform, due to the need to dilate the cervix slowly, else ripping can transpire causing a massive haemorrhage and death. Yet, Tiller left these women to their own dilating devices in motels without medical supervision - this rules out "maternal health resons".

As for "foetal defect", testing can pick up a good chunk of "defects" in the first and early second trimester, negating the need for the late third trimester abortion.

Further, the majority of Tillers records which are supposed to detail the reason for the abortion, are mysteriously not filled in correctly.

These days, a cleft palate can be "justification" for abortion.

People seriously need to grow a brain and realise that these LTA aren't done for acute or nearing fatal maternal health reasons or for serious foetal defect. The info is out there.

My sister and some of her friends met the guy a few years ago at some feminist event or something, so this whole thing feels a bit personal I guess.

More and more evidence is coming out that guys suffer from loosing a child to abortion. Its a silent grief that needs to be allowed to be expressed for the mental health of these men.

Yeah, I rant, but I'm so sick of people wallowing in self-imposed ignorance. I think if people really got into the literature that was out there, they'd be less inclined to support this morally repugnant practice or they'd at least understand the truth that props up this money driven industry.