Via The Catholic League.
In a speech in New York, Harvard professor Jessica Stern reportedly told her audience, "Catholic priests are not stepping up to condemn those who kill abortion doctors." Her comments were reported in today's New York Sun (Fri. 6/15/07).
Well, Jessica. The reason that Catholic priests aren't "stepping up" is that there has been no reason to. There have been exactly ZERO murders of abortion doctors and clinic workers in the United States and Canada so far in the 21st century. The last murder was nine years ago in 1998. (Even the defenders of abortion recognize this. Look here.)
There have been a total of seven of these awful murders since Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973. (Read more about that here.) And as the Catholic League reported today, in the mid-1990's (all seven occurred between 1993 and 1998), Catholic priests did "step up" and condemn these atrocities. Here are some samples:
- Following an awful 1994 murder of an abortionist in Florida, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said, "It makes a mockery of everything we stand for." (source)
- "Bishop John M. Smith of the Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee said it 'defies logic and flies in the face of divine law' for anyone to take a human life in the name of the pro-life movement. 'No one has the right to take the life of another human being as a solution to the issues surrounding abortion.'" (Also in 1994, source)
- "In Chicago, Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin issued a statement saying the use of violence in the name of fighting abortion 'not only defies logic, but the law of God and the teachings of the church.'" (source)
- "When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston." (The Catholic League)
- In the 1990's, Cardinal John O'Connor of New York was quoted on more than one occasion: "If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, let him kill me instead." (here)
Jessica Stern owes Catholics and Catholic priests a public apology. Her boss (?) should demand it as well and not allow the whiff of anti-Catholicism at Harvard.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Okay, now THAT is funny! And
June 15, 2007 - 23:03 ET byOkay, now THAT is funny! And everyone knows how I feel about Catholicism, but THAT is just totally funny! How can someone speak out against something that is not happening? hehe... Ya, that is great... :o)
However, I would not speak out against it, even if it were happening. To me, when an abortionist dies, less babies are brutally killed. I look at it the same way the Jews would have looked at someone killing men who were putting them in the gas chambers. Those men were 'just doing their jobs' too, ya know; would anyone have cried tears had someone killed those men? I wouldn't have. And I wouldn't cry tears for a baby killer being killed either.
God hates the hands that shed innocent blood: Prov 6:17 (Does there come more innocent than the unborn? Remember, we are 'born' sinners. So, what does that say about us before we were born?)
Debra...
Debra--A person's feelings ar
June 15, 2007 - 23:50 ET by ncstevemDebra--
A person's feelings are relatively unimportant because they are subjective. What is important is Truth which found through reason and logic.
ncstevem,I am not sure where
June 16, 2007 - 00:56 ET byncstevem,
I am not sure where you are coming from with regards to my post.
However, I believe that a person's feelings are very relevant because such drives a person. Often a person's feelings are what drives a person to find that which would be considered "reason and logic" to support such feelings.
Debra...
Well that is the problem Debr
June 16, 2007 - 06:23 ET by ncstevemWell that is the problem Debra. You've got it wrong. A person's motivations should not be subject to transitory 'feelings'.
Some women feel that they aren't prepared to handle their pregnancy so that leads them to the conclusion that an abortion is the 'reasonable' or 'logical' solution. Some men feel as though they no longer love their wife so a divorce is the 'logical' thing to do.
Neither of those 'solutions' are grounded in Truth.
Truth is objective, feelings are not. Therefore, Truth can not be 'supported' by feelings. The objective can't ever be have a foundation in the subjective else it wouldn't be 'objective'.
ncstevem, Well said! Br
June 16, 2007 - 09:26 ET by Templar10ncstevem,
Well said! Bravo!
I didn't say that a person's
June 16, 2007 - 14:26 ET byI didn't say that a person's feelings are always right, ncstevem.
I was just stating a fact, that people's feelings drive them. God's word says that the heart of man is wicked:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
We were born of the water, in need of a Savior. The second birth is of the Spirit. This is why God tells His children (the true believers) to walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh.
Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very wise to know what a person is feeling, because feelings certainly are what drives people.
If a person is walking after his flesh, we know that person is not after that which is of God. If a person is walking after the Spirit (of God), we know that person is after that which is of God.
Hence, true Christians should get to know people.
Look at Washington today; most there walk after the flesh.
And let's remember, that just because someone says that he is a believer, does not mean he is. We are to 'test the spirit,' to see if it be of God.
1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
2 Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Debra...
Let me ask you this Debra.
June 16, 2007 - 17:11 ET by ncstevemLet me ask you this Debra. You sited four verses from the NT in your last post. How do you know that those particular verses or the books contained within the NT are the inspired word of God?
I assume you know the history of the Bible but in case you don't, it was the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who determined which gospels, books & letters to include in the Canon of the NT and which ones to reject. They did so at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). The bishops considered over 30 gospels and over 100 epistles & books before selecting which ones to include in the canon of the NT.
Why would accept a bible that was compiled by people whose authority you reject?
ncstevem: Everyone knows that
June 16, 2007 - 17:22 ET by QueenMumncstevem: Everyone knows that there wasn't a "real" Bible until King James. ;)(sarcasm off)
BTW for my own edification: If you know, what are the major differences between the translations that are used in most Protestant churches (including evangelical Christian and Pentecostal) today and the one used by the Catholic Church? Thank you.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
ncstevem,... The Roman Cathol
June 16, 2007 - 18:11 ET byncstevem,... The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with my Bible.
It is a common misconception that all Bibles came from the Catholic church. Fact is, they did not. The true Scriptures were here before the Catholic church.
The Catholic church claims to have gotten their Scriptures from the Western Texts, which they say came from the Original Autographs, completed between A.D. 40 - 100.
There are no surviving complete Traditional manuscripts, from those Original Autographs. However, there are Traditional Text -- Byzantine Text and Majority Text.
Neither the Traditional manuscripts nor the Traditional Text, came from the Western Texts (which the Catholic bible came from.) My Bible came from the Traditional Text, which came from the Original Autographs, completed between A.D. 40 - 100.
Hence my Bible did not come from the Catholic bible.
Original Autographs
----- Western Texts
Latin text
Roman Catholic Bible
Original Autographs
----- Traditional Manuscripts
------- Traditional Text
(Byzantine Text and Marority Text)
-------1400s--Waldensians in the Italian Alps
------- Calvin's and Luther's translations
-------- Greek Text Editions
------ English Translations
1526 Tyndale
1535 Coverdale Bible
1537 Matthews Bible
1539-41 The Great Bible
1557-60 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishops Bible
1611 King James Version
ncstevem: There are none so b
June 16, 2007 - 19:15 ET by QueenMumncstevem: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QMIt is a gloss on history to
June 16, 2007 - 19:50 ET by botgQM
It is a gloss on history to think of the Roman Catholic Church as the megolithic authority that it is today. Think about the Council of Nicea, the Bishop of Rome did not even attend, there was a creed formed there which is accepted to this day as a compilation of the major tenets of Christianity. There were Bishops present other than the the representative from Rome. There is also a great tradition in the Eastern Church. There was a cooperation in the early church and was not until the Roman Church had been exerting 'authority' that fractions occured. The Latin Vulgate was/is the traditional Bible of the Roman Church.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: I think I understand wh
June 16, 2007 - 20:07 ET by QueenMumbotg: I think I understand what you're gettting at. But I think it a mistake to enter into a discussion re: the problems some have with the "Roman" church. I know when I'm over my head. Suffice it to say that as someone raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I find that I sometimes overlook the schism between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church. What is the traditional Bible then of the Eastern Church?
However, I still believe that it was the Catholic Church which established the canon of scripture and saw to it that it was preserved prior to the time that the printing press was invented. Am I being simplistic?
Does this timeline seem accurate to you?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Not sure about the timeline,
June 16, 2007 - 20:26 ET by botgNot sure about the timeline, I'd have to check it in-depth (and I frankly choose not to spend so much time on it) the site seems rather anti-Catholic and some of the info appears specious {did you see the Bible school in Scotland (maybe Ireland) for 800 years as a precurser to Evangelicalism?}. I rather believe the world and Christians in particular owe a great debt of gratitude to the Roman Church. At the same time it has not always acted well (ie: Indulgences, Inquisition)
Augustine was a cool dude!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
QM here's a couple of por
June 16, 2007 - 20:29 ET by botgQM here's a couple of portions from your timeline:
By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!
On the Scottish Island of Iona, in 563 AD, a man named Columba started a Bible College. For the next 700 years, this was the source of much of the non-Catholic, evangelical Bible teaching through those centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages. The students of this college were called “Culdees”, which means “certain stranger”. The Culdees were a secret society, and the remnant of the true Christian faith was kept alive by these men during the many centuries that led up to the Protestant Reformation.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: Do you suppose this is
June 16, 2007 - 20:45 ET by QueenMumbotg: Do you suppose this is the Columba that the timeline refers to? If so, the source is specious indeed.
As regards the Latin translation which became the standard of the Roman Catholic Church, it is my understanding that it was felt that a single translation be considered the official translation recognized as accurate by the Church for the sake of uniformity. Is this correct? If so, then the whole business about the CC executing those who possessed other translations is also specious. Thank you for your input.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
the dates matchSupreme Court,
June 16, 2007 - 20:53 ET by botgthe dates match
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: Sorry. I added somethin
June 16, 2007 - 20:56 ET by QueenMumbotg: Sorry. I added something to my post while you were posting. Could you please comment. Thanks.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QMI do know that it is histor
June 16, 2007 - 21:02 ET by botgQM
I do know that it is historically accurate that people were killed for having 'unauthorized' versions of the Bible. (and a theological dispute over trans-substantiation) However, I find the wording to be over-the-top.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
QM,Have to go now, talk to yo
June 16, 2007 - 21:04 ET by botgQM,
Have to go now, talk to you later
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: Thank you for clarifyin
June 16, 2007 - 21:08 ET by QueenMumbotg: Thank you for clarifying. I agree that the wording is misleading. And the story of Columba, as described, is pretty amusing in light of the facts. (Provided they are talking about the same person; and I believe they are.)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Debra: I found this history t
June 16, 2007 - 19:38 ET by QueenMumDebra: I found this history to be much more comprehensive. It seems you've conveniently neglected to include St. Jerome.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Which of the bibles that you
June 16, 2007 - 22:13 ET by ncstevemWhich of the bibles that you site has a different canon of the NT than what was complied by the Catholic Church at the councils I mentioned previously? Secondly, who selected which NT books were canonical and which books were rejected for these bibles?
Debra--you should read a little of John Newman. He was an Anglican priest from the 18th century. One of his famous quotes is, "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant."
I say this charitably, your bible history is erroneous.
Part 1 of an article by Norm
June 16, 2007 - 22:27 ET by botgPart 1 of an article by Norman Geisler on the Canon
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Part 2 and Part 3 Supreme C
June 16, 2007 - 22:31 ET by botgPart 2 and Part 3
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Nice link BOTG ! ;-)
June 16, 2007 - 22:31 ET by Free StinkerNice link BOTG ! ;-)
It took a while to find as i
June 16, 2007 - 22:35 ET by botgIt took a while to find as i have my Baker Encylopedia out (can't post that) but the vast portion of my library and research materials is packed until I'm out of flux
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
You might also enjoy Geisle
June 16, 2007 - 22:39 ET by Free StinkerYou might also enjoy Geisler's 4 volume set - Systematic Theology
Probally would though I've al
June 16, 2007 - 22:45 ET by botgProbally would though I've already decided to survey Francis Schaeffer. This was after reading 'Total Truth' by Nancy Pearcey
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Botg--The articles you've lin
June 17, 2007 - 07:01 ET by ncstevemBotg--The articles you've linked are sloppy scholarship at best. Look at the first paragraph where the author claims that the authority of the church (of course the only church in existence at the time was the Catholic Church) is subserviant to the authority of the canon.
If that is so, then each book of the NT would have to declare somewhere within that particular gospel, book or epistle that it was canonical. Unfortunately for the author, there is no way to determine from the text of the bible which writings are inspried and which are not. The Church existed long before the Bible did and it was the Church which determoned the canon.
As far as your claim about Columba--more bad scholarship. He was an abbot, priest and the Catholic Church delared him a saint. To suggest that the monastery which he founded was the beginning of Protestantism is pure fancy.
ncstevem: I can understand yo
June 17, 2007 - 11:49 ET by QueenMumncstevem: I can understand your confusion. Some of the information that you question was from a timeline that I linked and asked botg to assess. botg didn't highlight the particular items in his commentary. The questionable information was not botg's own words. In fact, if you follow my comments you'll note that I also questioned the reference to Columba. I was familiar with a St. Columba and found documentation on New Advent re: his life. The timeframe cited in the specious timeline matched. I think it's agreed by the three of us that the information in that timeline is somewhat specious and clearly designed to discredit the idea that the Catholic Church should be credited with preserving the integrity of the scriptures.
P.S. As usual, I neglected to do all of my homework. I see you are also referring to the later links posted by botg. No comment there. You two are now way over my head. But carry on.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
The Columba stuff if you read
June 17, 2007 - 12:06 ET by botgThe Columba stuff if you read the string was linked by QM and i responded that the info was specious.
If you read the articles, you will find the reasoning behind how to determine canon. Much of that reasoning as used by the Church Fathers themselves in descerning the issue. The canon was NOT an ex-cathedra pronouncement but rather a process where various Antinicene Fathers proposed their input eventually leading to councils in which agreements were settled upon. As to the only Church at the time, Christ himself around 80-90 AD directed John to write to the CHURCHES. According to your view it should have been directed to the vicar at Rome.
If you truly read the articles you will understand that God determines the Canon (who does the inspiration after all?) and the Church's responsibility is to seek out that which God has ordained. After reading and comprehending what Geisler has written then come back with a claim of sloppy scholarship.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
An aside: I find it puzzling
June 17, 2007 - 13:32 ET by QueenMumAn aside: I find it puzzling that many of those who call themselves Christian Conservatives so easily accept what amounts to revisionist history re: the Church. I thought revisionist history was a left wing concept. ;) But I guess revising history works for anyone who wishes to discredit the truth.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Debra--So it's just a coincid
June 17, 2007 - 06:37 ET by ncstevemDebra--
So it's just a coincidence that the KJV of the Bible happens to have the exact same canon of the NT as what was approved by the Catholic Church.
Does there come more innocent
June 16, 2007 - 18:04 ET by QueenMumDoes there come more innocent than the unborn? Remember, we are 'born' sinners. So, what does that say about us before we were born?)
Ms. Smith, Ms. Smith! I know. Before we are born, we are innocent. Right? But as soon as we are born we are sinners.
Now that's an interesting interpretation. So, is it more evil to abort a child before it is born than to murder it after it's born. I mean, since the newborn baby is a sinner and all? How does one "test" the spirit of the newborn? And how does one determine when the newborn has received forgiveness for his/her sins? Are newborns who may die in infancy or early childhood going to hell? I mean, since they really have no way to understand the concept of sin and therefore turn from their sin and seek forgiveness. How does one continue to love and care for a newborn who is a "born sinner" and who cannot seek forgiveness? I mean, shouldn't a parent choose God first and reject the child?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QueenMum,A person is condemne
June 16, 2007 - 22:12 ET byQueenMum,
A person is condemned because he rejects Christ. A two year old cannot do that. And there is Scripture that implies that a child would go to heaven.
God is fair. He is just. No matter what, we know that God is fair and just. I rest on that.
And it is never okay to kill a child.
Debra...
oh... and it is "Mrs."
Oh, I reject you.Debra the tr
June 16, 2007 - 22:18 ET by BlondeOh, I reject you.
Debra the troll.
For all of your nastiness here.
Debra: This still doesn't res
June 17, 2007 - 12:21 ET by QueenMumDebra: This still doesn't resolve my quandary re: who is and is not a sinner.
a. All are "born" sinners. b. Therefore, the newborn child is a sinner.
Or did you mean that all are born with the propensity toward sin? But that people who accept Christ are no longer sinners? If you truly meant "sinners", then what are the "sins" that are most often committed by children? You see, from what you've told me I get the impression that you believe that the sinning isn't the problem. It's the acceptance or rejection of Christ. I personally believe that sin is a conscious act and that because little children aren't capable of understanding right and wrong until a certain age, that they really can't be accused of "sin". Bad behavior perhaps. But not sin.
I don't believe that God condemns children to hell because they are not capable of understanding sin and/or making a decision re: Christ. However, you seem to be a bit shaky on the idea. You refer to Scripture that "implies". You're usually more certain about your Scripture. You also seem to be relying on your belief in a fair and just God rather than being certain because the answer is clear in God's Word. To carry it one step further, there are a lot of things that people think a fair and just God wouldn't do. Such is the argument of many unbelievers. JMO
I hope you weren't offended by my use of Ms. Although I assumed you were a married woman, I'm in the habit of using the Ms. designation because one can never know for sure these days. I find that it saves me from the faux pas of addressing a woman incorrectly. I've always felt that using Ms. was an acceptable form of address for either a married or single woman. At least you didn't accuse me of referring to you as an unmarried woman this time. ;)
P.S. On another thread I asked about your religious affiliation and you answered non-denominational. I had a follow-up question that I'm not certain you answered. Evangelical Christian or Pentecostal? Thank you.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Why should they speak up? The
June 16, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Conservative in the ArtsWhy should they speak up? Their not murders, they're freedom fighters, their "insurgents for the young", or as Rosie would put it: "as fathers and mothers too."
If the media and the left were so quick to try and get out of Iraq because of a few car bombs and say we should re-think our positions, I argued back that we should set off a few car bombs at abortion clinics and see how they'll react then. Sure, a car bomb at a holy site of abortion will be denounced as "terrorism" by all on the left. But a car bomb over in Iraq is just a "civil war" or "insurgency" anything but "terrorism"
Don't hold your breath wait
June 16, 2007 - 01:25 ET by motherbeltDon't hold your breath waiting for that apology. The LA Times just had to publish a correction for saying that Cardinal Mahony was NOT involved in a lawsuit for failing to protect parishioners from a pedophile teacher. Here's the item (posted on NB June 15)
:
Dr. Stern needs to “tweak
June 16, 2007 - 01:37 ET by maggieqpublicDr. Stern needs to “tweak” her lecture….. unless that would cut into her book sales.
Dr. Stern has probably been
June 16, 2007 - 01:52 ET by motherbeltDr. Stern has probably been giving the same lecture since 1995.
You’ve gotta wonder if the
June 16, 2007 - 02:04 ET by maggieqpublicYou’ve gotta wonder if the “highly-educated” Dr. Stern ever has the slightest concern that her rant may be sounding a bit stale.
Don't expect any correction
June 16, 2007 - 01:51 ET by Jinx McHueDon't expect any correction or apology. I've encountered people making that argument before and they always turn tail and run when presented with the facts. See, to them, murders of abortion doctors is approved by all pro-lifers. To them, murders of abortion doctors happen all the time. To them, the millions of pro-lifers in this country belong behind bars because of the actions of a handful of deranged individuals who acted alone.
You're right, Jinx. I once
June 16, 2007 - 01:53 ET by motherbeltYou're right, Jinx. I once heard a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show describe a "moderate" as someone who is opposed to abortion, but doesn't approve of blowing up abortion clinics.
What else is new? Harvard
June 16, 2007 - 02:10 ET by daveinbocaWhat else is new? Harvard is a fever swamp of feminist lesbian profs who hate the Catholic Church and got their jobs by PC jockeying, some by out-and-out gaming the system. Ditto Columbia & Brown and the Seven Sisters, all crammed with dildo warriors attacking Catholics and the traditional values of the Church.
Nothing New at Harvard
June 16, 2007 - 10:27 ET by Ole_SargeJessica Stern owes Catholics and Catholic priests a public
apology. Her boss (?) should demand it as well and not allow the
whiff of anti-Catholicism at Harvard
You have to REMEMBER, Harvard was always ANTI-Catholic. It started as
a Congregationalist (North American Form of protestant puritan belief that evolved into the Congregational Churches) seminary - it's graduates were slated
to be Ministers and preachers, some even became lawyers. Not Atheists and
Liberals (Ah well, maybe that IS from the lawyers).
It was for YEARS a backwater, State of Massachusetts
sponsored Protestant Seminary College.
A hold out for "Puritan" thought and belief. Not ever known for
"any" positive feelings, let alone teaching towards Catholics
and a great many other denominations as well.
It was not until the late 19th Century under Charles William
Eliot that the Harvard
University we know of
today evolved. Many “traditions” only go
back as far as Eliot’s tenure as University President.
The University of California at Berkeley (a.k.a. "The People's Republic of Berkeley") is more tolerant than Harvard,
Hey Jessica, if you are so co
June 16, 2007 - 02:16 ET by rbosqueHey Jessica, if you are so concerned with human life how 'bout the 48 million acts of violence inside the abortion clinics? Or are you only concerned for the death of the abortionists if it makes a political statement? Perhaps you are trying to establish a moral equivalency? Anything to justify infanticide huh?
Dave Pierre - There have bee
June 16, 2007 - 06:22 ET by ding7777Dave Pierre - There have been multiple attempted murders in the 21 century, unless of course, you don't think arsons, bombings, IEDs, and Molotov cocktails are capable of killing.
Using dingbat's logic:Dave
June 16, 2007 - 06:58 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsUsing dingbat's logic:
Dave Pierre - There have been multiple attempted
murders in the 21 century, unless of course, you don't think arsons,
bombings, IEDs, and Molotov cocktails are capable of killing.
These have all been either Muslim or atheist attempts.
Proof? I said so. There is your dingbat proof.
P.S. Attempts are not actual commission of aforesaid acts.
Go here and here to let your reps know what you think!
Whereas an abortion kills eve
June 16, 2007 - 07:04 ET by NonanonWhereas an abortion kills everytime it is performed.
No ...
June 16, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Dave Pierreding7777: "Dave Pierre - There have been multiple attempted murders in the 21 century, unless of course, you don't think arsons, bombings, IEDs, and Molotov cocktails are capable of killing."
According to National Abortion Federation's own web site (here), there has been one "attempted murder" this century, and that happened in 2000. "Multiple attempted murders"? Really?
The same source reveals that there has been one "bombing" - in 2001. (I think the NAF would put IEDs and molotov cocktails in the "bombing" or "attempted bombing" categories.)
I'm also willing to bet that the NAF would place the handful of arsons in the "attempted murder" row - if there were anyone in the building. I think it's a safe bet to say that these crimes were done at night or on weekends when the buildings were vacated.
Dave Pierre - According to NA
June 16, 2007 - 12:10 ET by ding7777Dave Pierre - According to NAF's footnote: All numbers represent incidents reported to or obtained by NAF. Actual incidents are likely much higher
Here are just two that were not reported:
Don't mean to get picky...
June 16, 2007 - 13:04 ET by c5thenBut the 21st Century didn't start until Jan 1, 2001.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Right, c5then, and don't let
June 16, 2007 - 14:42 ET by NewsbusterbrownRight, c5then, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. :-)
c5then - the NAF report that
June 16, 2007 - 18:28 ET by ding7777c5then - the NAF report that Dave linked to (and he is basing his claims on the NAF chart) does not list the 2000 or 2007 incident as "attempted murder". How many other "attempted murders" aren't listed?
Based on Stern's views and th
June 16, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Gat New YorkBased on Stern's views and the fact that she was part of Clinton's national security team, we now have further evidence as to why September 11 took place.
For this repugnant person to equate anything with fascist muslims is deplorable.
Regarding her comment on Jewish settlers, there is one thing worse than a jew-hater and that is an apologist for a jew-hater.
There have been multiple mude
June 16, 2007 - 11:00 ET by iveseenitallThere have been multiple muders of abortion clinic doctors. A liberal says so; no proof necessary, especially from a Harvard female ( feminists now rule at Harvard). Check out another site here this morning. Chris Matthews says biased new is good for America. If it's pronouced by a liberal, it must be so. Modern liberalism is ignorance and immaturity at its worst.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Last time I checked, Cathol
June 16, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Conservative VoiceLast time I checked, Catholics were against Murder, all murder...not just the politically in-correct ones.
its the same logic with hat
June 16, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Conservative Voiceits the same logic with hate crimes...prosecute the crime not the emotion