Pro-life Man Shot and Killed in Michigan, Nuts Rejoice (Update)

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


I'm sorry you were unable to read my post properly. I even pointed out the fact we don't know for sure if the gunman was pro-choice and if his beliefs on the issue are what motivated him. Troll elsewhere please.

I think I can shed a little light on this story.

I work about 5 miles from where the shooting happened and I went to high schoool with the shooter. I also know the other man who was killed and the man who got away with his life.

Believe me when I say that the shooter did not intentionally go out and kill an abortion activist. This man's murder was more of an afterthought that a planned killing. He drove by him on his way home after killing the first man and saw his signs, and in the frame of mind he was in, pulled the trigger.

This activist has been controversial in this area for years. He does hold up VERY graphic signs, at intersections, in front of city hall, and across the road from the high school. I don't care what your opinion is on abortion, murder is murder. But the shooter is being labeled an activist killer, when in reality, the guy just was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't see how this thread is anything more than a continuation of the need to push everyone into an extremist camp.

The vast majority of folks have a nuanced view of the abortion issue and aren't looking to shoot people. "Whacko's" come in all flavors...and all violence should be condemned...by both camps.

I am Pro-choice, Pro-life and Anti-abortion....really who likes abortions? Who doesn't like life?

For me the question is ...when does life begin..and the answer a mix of science and philosophy.

Does God/Nature murder babies when there is a common misscarriage? When do most Misscarriages occur?
Are we interfering with Gods/Natures will when we save a prematurely born baby?

But that is another discussion.

either way.....a whacko shot someone..whatever his view...he was a whacko all the same.

This thread OP is just more polarization and doesn't add to the debate in any productive way.

reply to post by aimlessly


This is exactly how it's been reported in the news articles that I've read, here in Michigan.

Sometimes, people snap.

reply to post by reasonable

Just an assumption but I bet he fully supported the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq which have killed 10,000's of children and babies. This typical double standard highlights that the anti-abortion crowd are mostly mentally ill.

I get what you are stating...although some seem not to. This does not just apply the the anti-abortion crowd...as it swings both ways.

How can one support abortion...but be against war...

How can one be against abortion...but be for war.....

Both can be viewed as loss of human life...which it is.....

As far as I'm concerned...you either value human life or you don't....

If you don't fall in that category...well you have other reasons...and it's probably not justifiable.

Sometimes people fail to see their own hypocrisy.....

[edit on 19-9-2009 by David9176]

reply to post by AshleyD


The term pro-life is meant to infer that those in opposition are anti-life - it is, in itself, an end run around logical debate. I've never personally met, or even read about a pro-choice person who was anti-life.

When you start your discussion by saying your opponent wants to kill babies, there's no discussion. It's a fight. And then you have the fact that being pro-life is like being pro-heaven or pro-luck - it's a hollow position, it means nothing.

It has to be said that while pro-choice people are not necessarily anti-life, pro-life people are, by definition, anti-choice.

It's a lot easier to discuss a subject and get positive results when we don't use semantics to obfuscate our positions.

The debate is about choice as far as I've ever understood it.

If the debate was about life, then pro-life people would be opposed to the death penalty, but overwhelmingly they're not. You see how ludicrous this is?

reply to post by WyrdeOne


Well then where do the people who advocate laws that kill newborn survivors of abortion fit into your definitions?

It's not as nice and neat as you want to make it out to be...

reply to post by jsobecky


I disagree that the line is really so unclear. Unborn vs. Born.

I'm very against abortion. I think it's the moral and biological equivalent of spitting in the face of God. Women who use it as a substitute for birth control make me physically ill. But that's got nothing to do with the laws that govern us, don't you understand that?

My feelings on the subject, your feelings on the subject, they're just that - feelings. If the law is to be decided based on each of our separate feelings, we're doomed. That's anarchy.

If the state can tell a woman she has to keep her baby, then the state can tell a woman she has to kill her baby. That's the sort of power with which no state can be trusted.

I would love for the law to be all-encompassing and perfect and holistic, but it's not and it never can be. The law is a very blunt tool. Community standards, family values, education, a personal sense of right and wrong - these are the things that must govern the finer points of our existence and incline us towards right action.

If you want to prevent abortion, focus on changing the larger context - focus on changing the way people think about it and their willingness to even consider it an option. That's the way to control abortion, not legislation.