CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

Last Sunday morning, Dr. George Tiller was murdered in the Lutheran Church which he attended Sundays. Dr. Tiller, known for his late-term abortions, was gunned down by Scott Roeder -- a man described by his family as mentally ill. According to Roeder's ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder,

"There has to be mental illness there. He couldn't cope with day to day life," she said. "He couldn't cope with the struggle of paying bills. He couldn't cope with not being able to make ends meet."

There appears to be little doubt that Mr. Roeder's actions were finally motivated by his anti-abortion views and the late-term abortions performed so infamously by Dr. Tiller. According to a news article posted on KWCH.com (which labels Scott Roeder a terrorist), Lindsey Roeder further believes her former spouse killed because of his views on abortion:

"He was determined that if the abortion doctor killed the baby then he didn't have any right to live either, it was justifiable," said Scott Roeder's ex-wife Lindsey. She says her ex-husband's views were so extreme, she knew he was capable of murder. "I think I knew that if he snapped, if he went that far, that he could actually do it," she said.

As a pro-life apologist, I am appalled by the killing of Dr. Tiller. I know that I am not alone in this. No one I have spoken with about the murder since Sunday morning has said, "Wow, that's great" or "That's a justified murder" or any other claim to that effect. Dr. Tiller, mistaken as he was about the wrongness of his actions, was still a human being created in the image of God who was not justly murdered by Scott Roeder. The idea that somehow killing people in the name of ending abortion is somehow promoted by Christianity or the pro-life movement in general is simply wrong and mistaken.

Don't get me wrong: I am certain that there are some wackos out there who probably argued that Scott Roeder was justified in killing Dr. Tiller -- just as his wife suggests. My argument is very simple: the segment of people who would hold this position is quite minuscule. My own sampling of people who I have dealt with in arguing for the pro-life movement leads me to conclude that less than one percent of all pro-lifers would hold to that view.

Even when Terry Randall and the clinic bombing by his extreme pro-life group was being debated, few that I can recall was advocating killing anyone. The focus was always on destroying the tools needed to commit the abortion, i.e., the clinics. There were some arguing by analogy that killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust would have been a good thing, therefore, killing an abortionist to stop abortion would have been a good thing. This argument was rejected by virtually everyone on several grounds. The most obvious reason was that God did not put into the hands of private individuals the power to kill others. Rather, God put into the hands of government only the power to execute for crimes. It is wrong for a private individual to elect himself the judge, jury and executioner.

At the same time, while I am appalled that someone killed him, I find that I am not particularly saddened by the fact of his death. If he had died of a heart attack instead of being murdered, I would have had no hesitation in saying that the death of George Tiller was a good thing for the thousands of babies he would otherwise have killed over the next few years through his late-term abortions. While it is probable that someone else will step in and take over his obviously profitable abortion practice, until that happens there are many babies in advanced stages of development who will not be sliced-up by this particular abortionist.

Does the fact that I can see good out of the death of George Tiller mean that I think that he should have been murdered? Absolutely not. Evil as his actions were, he was operating within the law and it is beyond the power of any individual to take the law into his own hand and kill another human being. Killing Dr. Tiller was completely contrary to the most fundamental beliefs of the pro-life movement that holds that every human life -- even the life of the morally confused Dr. George Tiller -- has value and should not be murdered.

A portion of a blog entry on the Vision Forum Ministries weblog by Doug Miller entitled George Tiller is Dead: For Whom Shall We Mourn?, raises some interesting arguments. I think that the language used by Mr. Miller is way-overblown. I think it is hyperbole that does not advance the conversation. However, he makes two points that I want to repeat, but in softer language. Miller says,

The tragedy is two-fold: First, by breaking the law of God (murder) in order to advance the law of God (punishing a murderer), the shooter demonstrated that he was a lawless individual and that, whatever his motivations, his cause was unholy. He cannot expect the blessing of God on his efforts, but rather the contrary. God was certainly capable of shutting down George Tiller without private individuals breaking His law by taking matters into their own hands. The ends do not justify the means. Pragmatic responses to evil produces short term victories and long-term heartaches.

Second, Tiller’s executioner has played into the hands of the community of abortion apologists — those in the press and elsewhere who look for every opportunity to shift the debate away from the bloodshed of babies. These individuals are hell-bent to justify America’s idolatrous practice of child sacrifice to the gods of feminist self-determination, and the wrongful killing of an abortionists only furthers their cause.

To state it differently, George Tiller attended church. Yet, he apparently either never heard that abortion was wrong at his particular church (which, given what I know from personal experience about the Lutheran church, is quite probable), or he ignored the teaching either to make money or because he justified that the killing of babies was actually a good thing (as taught by the pro-abortion movement). But the argument put forth by the pro-life movement about the teaching of the Bible is quite clear and compelling. The idea that the fetus is not a living human being -- especially a late term fetus such as Dr. Tiller regularly aborted -- flies in the face of scientific knowledge. What Dr. Tiller was doing was wrong in the eyes of God. But God doesn't seek for someone commit murder to end the sinful practices of an abortionist. We are called to respect the law and seek to change the law. That is largely what the pro-life movement is doing, and it is only the crazies and the nuts who would argue that Scott Roeder's actions were somehow Godly.

Second, the murder has not advanced the pro-life movement -- it has set it back. Roeder advanced short term goal of saving a few babies' lives at the cost of painting those working to end abortion legally across the entire country as people promoting illegal killings -- even identifying us as potential terrorists. I am certain that it won't be long before everyone who argues that abortion is wrong will be labeled as promoting violence against abortion clinics, abortion providers and women seeking abortions. That presents a further obstacle to promoting a cause that is already vilified by the pro-abortionists.

In sum, George Tiller is dead. While I am not sorry that he will no longer be killing babies, I am very sorry that he is dead, that he died without recognizing his sin, and that he was murdered by someone supposedly seeking to advance the pro-life cause. The manner of Dr. Tiller's death is probably going to make it much more difficult for the 99% of right-thinking pro-lifers to make their case for changing a very wrongful legal situation.

45 comments:

"Does the fact that I can see good out of the death of George Tiller mean that I think that he should have been murdered? Absolutely not."

Why not? After all, the shooter was only trying to defend the innocent. In situations where an innocent person is about to be murdered, we normally think it perfectly justifiable to use lethal force to stop the attacker (e.g. school shootings). So, if a fetus is really a person, with a full set of human rights endowed by his creator, and if abortion constitutes murder, then why would it not be perfectly justifiable to use lethal force against abortion doctors when they are about to commit murder?

1. It is justifiable to use lethal force, if necessary, to prevent would-be murderers from unjustly killing innocent human beings.
2. Abortion doctors are would-be murderers who unjustly kill human fetuses.
3. Human fetuses = innocent human beings.
4. Therefore, it is justifiable to use lethal force, if necessary, to prevent abortion doctors from unjustly killing human fetuses.

Why don't you want to embrace this conclusion?

CallMeIrresponsible said...

radical_logic, your equation doesn't account for those instances in which the law says that the killer is justified.

The point of my argument is that, if we adopt the assumptions Christians accept, then it would be perfectly justifiable to use lethal force, if necessary, to kill abortion doctors. Such killing would not constitute murder, since the point is to prevent it -- hence the action falls under the "defense of others" justification.

George Tiller terminated pregnancies in which the fetus was not viable or the mothers life or long term health was at risk.

One can certainly argue that this is still immoral (that women should risk death or injury to carry a difficult pregnancy to term, that anencephalic fetuses, or those with Potter's syndrome or some other fatal ailment should be delivered and allowed to live the hour or two of suffering they might endure if they actually survive the birth...) but comparing what Tiller did to murder or describing it as "killing babies" is nonsense, it's inflammatory and it's exactly the kind of overheated, extremist rhetoric that leads some deluded people to think they need to take the law into their own hands.

One should consider the reasons these abortions are performed before so casually condemning the people involved as monsters...even if you think they made the wrong choice you should understand that it was not an easy choice, and one which can only be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians, not by the loudest voice on the picket line and certainly not by a nut with a gun.

aheartbreakingchoice.com

Radical_logic,

Do I understand you properly? Are you actually advocating for the killing of abortion doctors?

A Hermit,

I don't buy into any of your premises.

There certainly were some babies that were aborted by Tiller where either the life or the health of the mother were at stake. However, everything that I have seen shows that those were the small minority. Think about it: every state allows abortions to protect the life and health of the mother, but women came to Tiller from outside of Kansas. Why? Because he didn't give a darn why the woman wanted the abortion -- he just performed them. Do you have statistics that show that the majority of Tiller's abortions were to protect maternal life or health?

As for the fetus not being viable -- that can be a rather subjective statement. Viability is presumed at 24 weeks. If the baby is dead in the womb, then it certainly can be removed as it poses the risk to mother (and every state allows that). On what basis is the baby considered not viable? Certainly, if the baby is going to be born anacephalic or with Potter's Syndrome, it is not viable. But the vast majority of arguments about viability are subjective.

And I do not back down from the fact that he was killing babies. The child in the womb is a baby from the moment it is conceived. It is a unique living human being whose life is terminated by abortion. That is killing. I don't call it murder, but it is killing. And it is a human being who is being killed. In the case of Dr. Tiller, the human beings that were being killed would be called "premature babies" if they came out of the womb at the time of the abortion. So, it is accurate to say that Tiller was killing babies through his abortion practice.

The problem with your question of why abortions are performed is a bigger problem for you because most studies that I have seen show that abortion is used primarily (and by a whopping margin) as after-the-fact birth control. The babies aborted due to risk to the life or health of the mother or because the baby is not viable represents an extremely small percentage of abortions. For example, a April 2004 Zogby poll published by the National Right to Life League shows that the hard cases represent 7% of all abortions. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html) So, looking at the reasons women have abortions does not encourage me to support it at all.

BK,

Not at all. I'm simply asking: given your assumptions, why don't YOU advocate the killing of abortion doctors?


1. It is justifiable to use lethal force, if necessary, to prevent would-be murderers from unjustly killing innocent human beings.
2. Abortion doctors are would-be murderers who unjustly kill human fetuses.
3. Human fetuses = innocent human beings.
4. Therefore, it is justifiable to use lethal force, if necessary, to prevent abortion doctors from unjustly killing human fetuses.

Where does this argument go wrong?

"The babies aborted due to risk to the life or health of the mother or because the baby is not viable represents an extremely small percentage of abortions."

Fact is, the abortions which Tiller is so vilified for performing were late term abortions, which are about 1% of all abortions and are only legal in cases where the fetus (and yes, its a fetus, not a baby) is non-viable or the health or life of the mother is at risk. No one has shown that Tiller violated that law (which is actually quite strict in Kansas.) That sad, rare and necessary service is what he provided, according to all the impartial accounts I can find.

90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, before the fetus has developed any of the neurological structures necessary for human cognition. That's not a "baby". It may be a potential baby, but then so is every egg and sperm cell.

And it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to presume that you or I or anyone else can decide for a woman what she should allow to happen inside her own body, or to dismiss their reasons for making the choices they do as trivial. You are in no position to judge the intensely personal choices of women you've never met.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

BK, how could it only be a small minority of abortions that Tiller performed that were either a non-viable fetus or seriously and actually endangered the mother when Kansas law only permits late-term abortions in those cases (http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/kansas/)?

Tiller had been arrested but acquited of failing to get a truly independent 2nd doctor to okay his abortions as Kansas law requires. Don't you think Kansas officials would have had an easier time getting Tiller if his late-term abortions were casual, which is clearly against Kansas law?

Are your sources documented? What do the original documents say?

Some thoughtful words from Frank Schaeffer:

"My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America....The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words. I am very sorry."

CallMeIrresponsible said...

Just to pile on, what theory of ensoulment will account for the following without being ad hoc?

From “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker, p. 225 or so

"[R]esearch on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes. What and where is the soul during this interval?"

"Still, one might say that at whatever point . . . the new genome is formed, the specification of a unique new person has come into existence. The soul, by this reasoning, may be identified with the genome. But during the next few days, as the embryo's cell being to divide, they can split into several embryos, which develop into identical twins, triplets, and so on. Do identical twins share a soul? . . . . Indeed, every cell in the growing embryo is capable, with the right manipulations, of becoming a new embryo that can grow into a child. Does a multicell embryo consist of one soul per cell, and if so, where do the other souls go when the cells lose that ability? And not only can one embryo become two people, but two embryos can become one person. Occasionally two fertilized eggs, which ordinarily would go on to become fraternal twins, merge into a single embryo that develops into a person who is a genetic chimera; some of her cells have one genome, others have another genome. Does her body house two souls?"

I don't think human beings "have" souls so much as they are souls. So the question is whether the fetus is human not whether it has reached some state of theological epistomological development.

And seeing Schaeffer trading off his father's accomplishments to condemn his father is rather pathetic. Also pathetic, and hypocritical, is his using just the kind of rhetoric he claims to condemn to do his condemning. All Pro-Lifers have blood on their hands and contributed to cold-blooded murder and share moral blame for the murder? Isn't that the kind of rhetoric he claims to be condemning? What a hypocrite.

Pro-abortion zealots seem to be getting much more satisfaction out of the murder of Tiller than any pro-life advocate I know.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

"I don't think human beings "have" souls so much as they are souls. So the question is whether the fetus is human not whether it has reached some state of theological epistomological development."

Layman, your last post does not address the issues I brought up, regardless of whether people are souls or whether they have souls, or something else.

What theory of ensoulment accounts for the scenarios of how people are created that Pinker outlines?

"I don't think human beings "have" souls so much as they are souls. So the question is whether the fetus is human not whether it has reached some state of theological epistomological development."

According to St. Augustine it was around 24 weeks (modern science puts the development of higher neurological functioning somewhat earlier, actually...)

But even accepting the "soul hypothesis" the real question is; at what point does one soul have more rights over another soul's physical being? If the mother's life or health is threatened by continuing that pregnancy does that theoretical fetal soul have more rights than the mother? If delivering the fetus will result in a brief, hours long life of suffering outside the womb are we doing that soul any favours by continuing that pregnancy to term? If the fetus is physically dead, or otherwise compromised (eg anencephaic) is there any point in continuing that pregnancy?

These are the real questions faced by thousands of women, like the ones helped by Dr. Tiller. The "pro-life" movement's unwillingness to even acknowledge that these could be legitimate questions is what leaves them out on the fringes where the cold blooded murder of a man in his church can be viewed with "mixed emotions" instead of horror and disgust at a blatant act of terrorism.

AH,

You are engaging in further hyperbole.

Many if not most members of the "pro-life movement" believe that abortion is morally justified if there is a real threat to the life of the mother.

And for those that don't, or don't agree on the more nebulous issue of a woman's health, being pro-life does not mean that they fail to even "acknowledge that these could be legitimate questions" it may just mean they acknowledge those are legitimate questions and come to a different conclusion than you.

CMI,

If I don't think the issue is "ensoulment" but is rather humanity then your entire post is irrelevant to me. What do I need to address if I do not care when a human supposedly gets a soul?

CallMeIrresponsible said...

Not caring about an issue is one way of ignoring its implications. In a discussion, no sub-issue, clearly pertinent to the main issue, should be off-limits.

Letting the other shoe drop, my hypothesis is that it is impossible to come up with a description of when someone comes to have/be/buy/barter/find a soul. When someone declines to refute it, it make me think (reasonably) that my hypothesis just might be true.

And if we can't say when, doesn't that cast doubt on whether it ever happens? Especially for something like the "soul," which looks exactly like something made up out of thin air.

CMI,

This may surprise you but we allow comments to discuss issues raised in the opening post. Not every thread is meant to become and argument about the existence of God or the supernatural. Since I do not think the issue of ensoulment as you so amateurly discuss it is relevant to the abortion issue, I see no need to discuss it further. I don't care what implications you draw from that. So proceed as you wish.

This does not mean that other commenters agree with me. They may very much want to argue the issue of ensoulment with you. Have at if they do. I'm not saying its necessarily irrelevant to abortion, I'm just saying its not a factor for me to discuss the soul in the way that you do.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

Layman, I agree that it is OK to drop a sub-issue not related to the original post. That's fine.

But please don't call my discussion amateurish if you don't want to continue the discussion. That's a bit of a mixed message.

"
You are engaging in further hyperbole."


On the contrary; the hyperbole starts in BK's post, in which he describes the murdered Dr. tiller as a baby killer. People who use that kind of language are not acknowledging the legitimacy of those questions...

AH,

You seem to think that if there is a "legitimate" question then there is no legitimate answer to that question. Irrespective of the nature of BK's post, I happen to think there can be legitimate answers to legitimate questions.

This comment has been removed by the author.

"You seem to think that if there is a "legitimate" question then there is no legitimate answer to that question."

That makes no sense whatsoever...

"Irrespective of the nature of BK's post, I happen to think there can be legitimate answers to legitimate questions."

So do I; but we disagree about those answers. My problem with people like BK is that they refuse to see any possibility that another point of view might be valid; you can't go around labeling people "babykillers", declaring unequivocally that what they were doing was "wrong in the eyes of God" and eching the same sentiments as terrorists like Roeder and then credibly claim to accept the legitimacy of the other point of view.

You're accusing me of hyperbole; what about the hyperbole of BK's post (which is a reflection of the hyperbole rampant in the anti-abortion movement..in fact he even says he's toning it down...)? Doesn't that bother you at all?

AH,

I can think that abortion is a gravely immoral act that takes the life of a human being and understand why people come to a different conclusion. But the fact that people can come to a different conclusion does not mean that I am wrong in concluding that abortion is a gravely immoral act that takes the life of a human being.

You seem not to think that the pro-life movement raises no legitimate questions. Or at least you are not willing to treat their legitimate questions as you demand the pro-abortionists be treated.

"You seem not to think that the pro-life movement raises no legitimate questions. "

Not true; I think there are legitimate reasons to restrict abortion after the third trimester. But in fact the law does that, and in fact Dr. Tiller was, according to the courts, complying with those laws.

I also think it would be preferable to make abortion less common than it is, through comprehensive education, broad access to contraception, public support for unwed mothers, paid maternity leave, etc. etc.

Now if you want to make the case a woman should be forced to carry to term every pregnancy with no exceptions, or that the decision to abort should be a matter of public concern and not a decision made by a competent individual in consultation with a qualified medical professional then yes we're going to have a difference of opinion, but on the rest of it I think we could probably find some common ground.

But I won't be labeling you a criminal for disagreeing with me. BK and others who resort to extremist language, on the other hand, by routinely tossing around labels like "baby-killer" and demeaning the women who have made that difficult decision by accusing them of "slicing up their babies" are shutting down that dialogue and contributing to the atmosphere in which a fanatic like Roeder feels justified in committing an act of terror and murder. And I'm afraid we're going to see more like him unless the rhetoric coming from that side of the aisle gets a bit more reasonable.

In other words, if you're concerned about hyperbole don't be pointing fingers at me...

Edit; should have said "I think there are legitimate reasons to restrict abortion after the FIRST trimester."

And I'd like to see even those first trimester procedures reduced, as outlined above.

More hyperbole and now mischaracterizations on your part. BK did not refer to mothers slicing up their babies. He referred to a procedure that sometimes in fact involves "slicing."

Nor does he use the term "baby-killer" as you claim. He does refer to late term abortions as killing babies, but which part do you object to? Is a 9 month fetus not a baby or is an abortion not the killing of that baby?

He talks about "babies" being "sliced up" by Tiller, and I don't see much difference between saying someone "killed babies" and calling them a "baby-killer".

That kind of language makes no allowance for any possible, legitimate reason for aborting a fetus, like preserving the health or life of the mother, or to prevent the birth into suffering of a non-viable fetus, or to terminate an already dead fetus...

Characterizing those choices as "slicing up" or "killing" babies is pejorative to say the least.

AH,

It may be pejorative in your opinion, but you mischaracterized BK's comments.

And you failed to answer my questions. Is is unreasonable to refer to a nine month fetus as a baby? And if abortion is not killing that nine month fetus what is it doing?

Also, do any abortion procedures involve something that could be described as "slicing"?

Layman I haven't mischaracterized anything, I've quoted. If you feel it's unfair to use BK's own words than I'm not sure what else I could possibly say...

And I have answered your questions, I'm sorry if the answers are too subtle, or perhaps not to your liking.

AH,

You misquoted. BK did not refer to mother's slicing their babies and did not use the term "baby-killers." It amazes me that you can lie so fragrantly by claiming to quote him when I just showed that you had not. Its like the absurd use of the term "literally" by so many when they actually mean the opposite.

You didn't answer the questions. Coward.

So I paraphrased; I certainly didn't misrepresent anything; saying someone kills babies is exactly the same as calling them a baby killer.

I did answer your question, by the way. Try reading more carefully, but if you need me to be more explicit here you go; an embryo is not a baby. A fetus, certainly a non-viable fetus, is not a baby. Terminating a pregnancy which threatens a woman's health is not the killing of a baby. This is not to say it should be permissible for mere convenience (and I don't it believe it often, if ever, is just for "convenience). Even if we consider the fetus after a certain stage of development to be a person I don't think we can unequivocally give that person more rights over the body of the person in whom it is growing if it is threatening the health or life of that individual. That is a deeply personal question of personal sovereignty best left to a woman and her doctor, not to the general public, to decide.

Now, if that makes me a "baby killer" or one who supports the killing of babies, if you prefer that exact wording, in your eyes then I
m afraid you've rather missed the whole point of the discussion.

And if all you've got left is cheap insults then I guess there's not much point in trying to have a conversation...

AH,

It is a lie to claim you "quoted" him when you admit you "paraphrased" him.

I asked about a ninth month fetus. You are dodging.

Yes, terminating a ninth month fetus that threatens to take the life of a mother is killing a baby. It, in my opinion, should be legal as well. But that doesn't mean we should sugar coat it or devalue the baby whose life is taken.

Deal with reality, AH. Life is not a bag of lollipops.

And it's a bigger lie to say I misrepresented anything, or that I failed to answer your question.

Now, can you show us how many of Dr. Tiller's patients had abortions in the ninth month, how many of them were, in your view "unnecessary", why you think they were unneccessary, why your opinion on the matter should be given more weight than the mothers...

And then explain why you think describing what those unfortunate women chose to do as "killing babies" contributes to a calm, rational, respectful discussion of the issue?

Please see if you can do it without further coarsening the conversation with pointless ad hominem attacks on me.

AH,

I am not misrepresenting anything. You claimed to have quoted BK when in fact you admit you were paraphrasing. I called you on it and rather than admit your error and apologize you continue you defend your own dishonesty. Is this a pattern for you?

You also lied when you said you had answered my questions. You clearly had not and still have not.

I have made no claims about what Dr. Tiller has done or not done. I did not claim that any discussion was calm or respectful.

It is very telling that you think you can lie about what was said and what you have said and claim that to be called on it is an ad hominem attack. You are very close to being banned from this site.

I did answer your question; twice;

"I did answer your question, by the way. Try reading more carefully, but if you need me to be more explicit here you go; an embryo is not a baby. A fetus, certainly a non-viable fetus, is not a baby. Terminating a pregnancy which threatens a woman's health is not the killing of a baby. This is not to say it should be permissible for mere convenience (and I don't it believe it often, if ever, is just for "convenience). Even if we consider the fetus after a certain stage of development to be a person I don't think we can unequivocally give that person more rights over the body of the person in whom it is growing if it is threatening the health or life of that individual. That is a deeply personal question of personal sovereignty best left to a woman and her doctor, not to the general public, to decide."

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my questions.

I don't see any difference between calling someone a "baby killer" and saying that they "kill babies". And just because I didn't quote verbatim doesn't mean I was misrepresenting anything or lying.

Quote
Usage: Quote, Cite. To cite was originally to call into court as a witness, etc., and hence denotes bringing forward any thing or person as evidence. Quote usually signifies to reproduce another's words; it is also used to indicate an appeal to some one as an authority, without adducing his exact words.

If you want to ban me over a semantic quibble like that go ahead.

I think it will be clear which of us is really the coward if you do.

AH,

The lie is to claim you were quoting when you know you were doing no such thing. You said "I've quoted" when you did not and you are still defending it.

And its not answering my question to say a fetus is not a baby but then to narrow your statement by saying a non-viable fetus is "certainly" not a baby, which suggests that perhaps others -- such as a nine month fetus as I refer to -- are reasonable called babies. I have heard countless women refer to the "fetus" in their womb as their "baby," especially when they are far along as nine months.

And to say that abortion does not kill the fetus when the mother's life is threatened is not only intellectually pathetic but it is not answering my question. I put no such qualification on my question.

If this kind of dishonesty and parsing is representative of your approach to intellectual inquiry which you claim caused you to lose your faith then I feel all the more comfortable in my own.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

AH,

You are cementing your undesirable status with every post.

It takes me much less time to delete you than it does for you to write new comments.

Your dictionary definition is laughable because you were in no way citing BK "as an authority." Rather, you were trying to use his exact words to condemn him and claimed to have "quoted" him when you in fact had "paraphrased him."

You are a walking example of how little it means when an atheist claims to have rejected his faith after a sincere and rigorous intellectual search.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

AH,

It is not civil to lie about what was said and then continue defending your lie despite the fact it is overwhelmingly obvious that you misquoted BK but insisted it was a quote then tried to come up with a definition that suggesting quote does not mean quote.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.