Let's say that a man was actually in a maternity ward and was actually killing real newborn babies -- what defense, including murdering him would not be allowed?
PRETTY DAMN GOOD: http://www.anncoulter.com/ 49 MILLION TO FIVE June 3, 2009 In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs. Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan. Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful. According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five. Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head. So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans. But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo. Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them. Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies. In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist. In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill. Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions. Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11. But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption. Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer. The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live? I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists? Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one. COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
So according to Ann Coulter, if you don't include the bombings, death threats and attempted murders of doctors, pro-lifers have better stats than Muslim terrorists. That's quite a defense there.
Yes, it certainly isn't. Hell, it barely even made sense. It throws in red herrings, appeals to emotion, and a load of fallacies of correlation. Remember when people would recognize nonsense?
Let's see, Coulter says most Americans are opposed to abortion, so that makes abortion wrong. Hmmm... Most people voted for Al Gore, that must mean Al Gore was elected president. Wait, that isn't the law... The law is that Al Gore got the popular vote, the most votes but lost because the law doesn't go by popular vote... According to the law, abortion is not murder... ...but in Coulter's world it is murder because she doesn't agree with the law... Hacks like Coulter ignore logic in favor of demogaguery, logical fallacy, rationalization, and a lack of consistency of principle beyond the end justifying the means. In Coulter's world, America is not a nation of laws, but a nation of "morality" which comes from the Bible, not the Constitution, nor the process the framers put in place to run our government... The reality is that the right wingers and "Pro Lifers" give lip service to the killing of a doctor as "wrong" but secretly, and in Coulter's case not so secretly, believe that it was not murder of the doctor by their own version of Capital punishment by the real government, you know, the Bible...and they look upon the executioner as a hero. Capital punishment of course is not murder in their mind, because it is sanctioned by law, but abortion is murder even though it is sanctioned by law... Right wingers are so full of shit...
No, that's not what she said. She said five abortionists were killed versus 3,000 innocent people by muslim terrorists. The NY Times was concerned about people blaming all muslims. As for pro lifers, they are quite happy to blame them all. You act like abortionists and abortion clinics are the only places in the country suffering violence. There have been more Christian churches burned than abortion clinics bombed. There has been more property damage caused by enviromental terrorists than all the abortion mill attacks. A muslim killed six women in one attack at the Seattle Jewish Federation.
Uhhh no. The New York Times was concerned about the very real backlash violence that was occurring against Muslims. I can understand why you want to paint pro-life people with your victimhood brush, but I simply haven't seen any attempted killings or beatings of pro-lifers. Umm... first of all, the "Seattle Jewish Federation" is not a "Christian Church." Secondly, the attacker didn't kill six people at all, he killed one. Thirdly, even if others are suffering violence doesn't make violence right or more acceptable. I haven't heard about any attacks on Christian churches since the guy who went into a church in Tennessee and shot people who he felt were "liberals."
Trust me, when you compare an entire political belief system based on one psycho you are the one who looks like a moron. A psychoanalyst would have a field day with you. Also if you support Obama then you also support right wing foreign policy. Obama has done nothing but embraced Bush's foreign policy. Obama announces that all interrogations must comply with the Army Field Manual but then has his CIA Director announce that he will seek greater interrogation authority whenever it is needed and convenes a task force to determine which enhanced interrogation methods beyond the Field Manual should be authorized. Obama makes a melodramatic showing of ordering Guantanamo closed but then re-creates its systematic denial of detainee rights in Bagram, and last month Secretary of Defense Gates hinted that up to 100 suspected terrorists would be detained without trial. He railed against Bush's Guantanamo military commissions but then preserved them with changes that are plainly cosmetic. Obama has been at least as aggressive as Bush was in asserting radical secrecy doctrines in order to prevent courts from ruling on illegal torture and spying programs and to block victims from having a day in court. He has continued and even "ramped up" so-called "targeted killings" in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have predictably caused more collateral damage to innocent civilians. He has maintained not only Bush's rendition policy but also the standard used to determine to which countries a suspect can be rendered, and has kept Bush's domestic surveillance policies in place and unchanged. Most of all, he has emphatically endorsed the Bush/Cheney paradigm that we are engaged in a "war" against Terrorists -- with all of the accompanying presidential "war powers" -- rather than the law enforcement challenge that John Kerry, among others, advocated. I would be willing to bet money that you won't reply to this post beyond another one of your compulsive and emotional outbursts that resemble something similar to a toddler.
You are right about the Seattle incident. One dead, not six. I believe he shot six people in all, and I got the numbers confused with another incident in 1999 at a LA Jewish Community Center when another gunman shot and killed some people. The point remains valid however. Many groups have experienced violence, and not just random street crime type violence. The interesting thing is how the authorities and media bend over backwards to excuse or minimize some types of violence but not others. For example, in the seattle shooting, the prosecutor made an interesting statement: "Prosecutor Norm Maleng said, "Make no mistake, this is a hate crime," and that, "there is no evidence the shooting itself was an act of terrorism".[6] This statement has been used to describe Haq's actions as a hate crime rather than terrorism (see also definition of terrorism)." from Wikipedia.