Posts by Tess Rooney
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I use the term pro-life because it covers more than just being anti-abortion, as I said above I'm against all killing except in self-defence and in certain cases, war.
Also I I'm pro-life from the very beginning of human life, until it's very end, but if you want to narrow me down to only being anti-abortion that's your call. But I', also anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia and so on.
-
Kyle:
It just feels as though (from my personal perspective) that the murder of Tiller reflects on all of us.
I mean I am pro-life, I disagree with abortion, euthanasia, research that destroys human embryos, the death penalty etc. Basically I believe that no one should take another's life except in self-defence. I hate war, even wars that needed to be fought such as World War II, I'm against the use of many weapons, eg, nuclear, cluster bombs, mines, chemical weapons, depleted uranium etc.
Yet here comes Scott Roeder and his actions reflect on me because we held the same belief - George Tiller killed vulnerable human beings for a living.
I guess I just want to distance the actions of those who would do violence.
-
Tess, the actions of that movement are violent, deliberate and well beyond "unhelpful". Your discomfort about a spade being called a spade is your problem.
I'm not discomforted, I am just unsure of how appropriate the term is. The vast majority of pro-life protests are legal and non-violent.
Certainly in New Zealand the last piece of violent rhetoric about abortion would have been the youtube video about Ken Orr which showed a gun being pointed at his head.
Suppose the situation was reversed and someone murdered Ken Orr, what would you have to say about that?
-
"Well, clearly, it works pretty well if there are only two doctors in America prepared to carry out a legal procedure."
I'm suspicious of this statistic because late term abortion are done several different ways. I'd be highly surprised if there weren't more clinics and hospitals offering early induction to terminate the fetus. That's how most late term abortions are done in New Zealand.
-
Why the terrorism label, but not assassination? I think that is a better term for what happened to Tiller.
It's a shame that people use such violent rhetoric, it's highly unhelpful. Whilst I think that what Tiller did professionally was morally wrong, the protests need to be directed at government level in order to change the law.
I'd also be keen for hand guns to be generally got rid of too. Not that one needs a hand gun to kill, but it is a very specific weapon designed for shooting people.
-
Isn't terrorism supposed to be organised by a group?
I/S listed all the violence since 1977, and whilst I deplore every act of violence, it's not a lot for a country of _millions_ of people. If this is a concerted terrorist effort, frankly, it sucks.
Compare it with actual agreed terrorist organisations, say the IRA. In the "Troubles" hundreds died, in the worst year, 1972, 476 people were killed and this in a country tiny by comparison to America.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/deaths_by_year.html
The man who murdered Tiller wasn't acting as part of a group as far as we know. No pro-life group has stepped forward and claimed responsibility, in fact so far they have all distanced themselves from the action.
-
Most of the pro-life blogs I read deplore the murder of Tiller. It was not a pro-life act at all. I deplore what Dr Tiller did in his professional life, but that did not justify shooting him, or in any way harming him.
I also disagree with threatening or harassing people. I personally have not protested at an abortion clinic, but I have friends who have prayed rosaries outside them. I'm not entirely comfortable with that personally, however I do pray at home and at church for pro-life issues.
No one can do good, by doing evil and murdering Dr Tiller was evil. We live in a society of laws, without which we would be reduced to barbarism.
-
Giovanni... You obviously hate the Catholic Church. I do not.
If it was priestly celibacy that caused the sexual abuse, why is the Anglican Church dealing with the same issue? I've given a link to one case, but there are more.
A warning for anyone who may get upset by reading about sexual abuse:
http://themcj.com/?p=4612One of my mother's friend of a friend's husband was a minister who sexually abused children, his church covered it up and moved him on. It's happened in the Salvation Army, teachers have abused students. My friend's father raped her, he was married.
It isn't a Catholic thing. It isn't a celibacy thing. It's not a religious thing. It's more than just a sexual thing. It's a _power_ thing. And any organisation is prone to abusing power.
-
What I'm saying Tess is this - why could you not raise your children with a firm set of moral guidelines and connected to their spirituality without resorting to a church?
The moral guideline part I understand. But how could I raise my children connected to spirituality? Part of experienceing the numinous is responding to it. I believed that there was a God. I need to act on that and worship, not alone, but in a collective.
-
Why can children not have access to a spiritual life without the church/place of worship thing? Just asking.
Not sure if you read it, but I did try that and I personally found it unfulfilling. I'm not saying other do, but I did.
I was very drawn to Hinduism, but it's hard to be Hindu if you aren't Indian, unless you go for the Krshna Conscienceness Movement, which was tempting.
And crikey, they are even tougher on sexual acts, they are _only_ allowed if you are trying to make a baby.