"Christian Terrorist" Arrested for Alleged Plot to Bomb a Women's Clinic

I found this from the article to be very interesting;

"No one has accused Christianity of trying to violently murder women, or trying to deny women access to clinics that offer prenatal care in addition to abortion."

I will, you don't see atheist trying to deny women access to clinics that offer prenatal care in addition to abortion. In my experience atheist are more christian like than christians themselves.

I absolutely loved this too;

"This Muslim writer is thankful for two things: Moose was unable to complete his alleged terrorist plans, and Moose is not a Muslim."

"It is their political counterparts,Islamism and Dominionism, that are the problem."

Exactly!!!!! And quite a few of these Dominionists are running for high office. Connect the dots.

"We may soon have some of these people in Congress. That's scary as hell."

Not if I can help it!

1.1 - you do not know all Christians.

A critical thinker can realize that that there are many in every organization who described him or herself as something that he or she might not be.

Lola, love your deep thoughts today, well typed!

The words "Christian terrorist" or "Islamic terrorist" is religion masquerading as frindge racism. There is no need to specify, call it what is is , "Religious violence". As if the goal is to declare a winner as to which religions community is more violent at nailing it's points home. But obviously not for power in the after, but for here and now on Earth.

Get out and vote in Nov. people, get your friends out to vote. If we sit at home and don't vote, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

As to this article, domestic terrorists are on the rise and yet no one seems terribly concerned. Wonder why that is the case?!

We shouldn't allow any more churches to be built in our country.

1.1 - you do not know all Christians.

A critical thinker can realize that that there are many in every organization who described him or herself as something that he or she might not be.

With this in mind, what is your opinion on the NYC mosque?

you do not know all Christians.

A critical thinker can realize that that there are many in every organization who described him or herself as something that he or she might not be.

However in this day and age a religion is now defined by the actions of its zealots. How about instead of going on about how not all Christians are misogynistic anti-LGBT a-holes, you get up and actively fight against the Christian zealots.

'End abortion by any means necessary and at any cost'. 'Save a live, Shoot an abortionist' ".

End the anti-choice movement by any means necessary and at any cost. Protect the women's right to choose, silence an anti-choicer and jail the terrorists.

What I am seeing here is one man's freedom fighting is another man's terrorism. We have religious terrorists in this country. Of all religions.

This Christian man is a religious terrorist. What he is, is a potential muderer. How can he believe that he is joining God's army if he is willing to disobey God's Command?

Why do we "overlook" this kind of radical religious terrorism in this country? Because they are one of us and we are not terrorists, only the Moslem's are. Talk about being hypocritical!

As for me I am for the Mosque in NYC. It is not on ground zero, but two blocks away and in this country we have a thing called "Freedom Of Religion" It is part of the Constitution which is the Law of this Land.

Before you start harrassing me because of "husker," I am a native New Yorker, lived in Connecicut and New Jersey. I lost many friends in 9/11. Christians, Jews, Moslems, and Hindus. I have only been a husker for 7 years.

Agreed but the Christian in the article refered to himself as a freedom fighter.

Moose allegedly posted a caption under one of his pictures that says "whatever you may think about me, you're probably right. Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist...? Yep! Terrorists...? Well.... I prefer the term 'freedom Fighter'. 'End abortion by any means necessary and at any cost'. 'Save a live, Shoot an abortionist' ".

O'Donnell, Angle, Rand Paul... freaking country has gone nuts.

It makes Bush look like a moderate in comparison. Wait, did I just say that??

How about this? A federal law banning sales of any bibles containing the New Testament (specifically, the Book of Revelation) for anyone belonging to the teabagger party without completing a detailed application, submitting a valid certifcate of a recent mental health evaluation and a 30-day waiting period with thorough background checks. . . Copies of 1) bibles without the New Testament (Old Testament only), 2) the Q'uran, 3) Tanakh and 4) Kabbalah would have no such restrictions, of course.

How can he believe that he is joining God's army if he is willing to disobey God's Command?

And "God's command" is? You haven't seen or spoken to God, you don't know what God looks like or sounds like and you're only going by a ludicrous book written centuries ago that's been rewritten over the years by a bunch of fat old men who wanted to control and manipulate and terrorize people.

Freedom fighters fight governments. When you target civilians, you're a terrorist - no matter what your cause.

So Dennis what do you call a government that attacks "civilians"? Israeli government routinely attacks civilians....of course keep in mind Israel labels every civilian opposed to their occupation a militant or a terrorist.

So by definition Israel would be a "terrorist state"? What gets a lot of ink are states that support freedom fighters in Israeli occupied lands. They of course are labeled "sponsors of terrorism".

Now Hamas are terrorists as they lob bombs indiscriminately (not targeting strictly IDF). So I am lost what is the difference between Hamas and the Israeli government?

Of course we support Israeli government so could we be accused of being a sponsor of a terrorist state?

Sorry Dennis I may be off topic but exploring hypocrisies as well.

Israeli government routinely attacks civilians....of course keep in mind Israel labels every civilian opposed to their occupation a militant or a terrorist.

That is not an accurate statement. The Israeli government does not indiscriminately target civilians. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately hide themselves and their facilities among civilian populations so that any response to their deliberate attacks on Israeli citizens, both Jewish and Muslim, can be characterized as attacks on civilians.

@ John Smith

And MOST often do not! MOST complaints toward Islam are based on calls to violence in the Qur'an that a growing MINORITY of Muslims are following. To write everyone off as hating the 'brown people', or Muslims in general is disingenuous, or more likely outright avoidance of an inconvenient truth.

Then why the massive outcry over American citizens building a place of worship near ground zero? If it wasn't an attack on Muslims in general, why was it focused on Muslims who'd never done anything to anyone?

Dennis P McCann

This Christian Terrorism stuff is on the rise.

Let's get something crystal clear. This term is simply not adequate to describe the nature of these heinous acts. The truth is that this guy is a sociopath who wraps himself in the Cross as he prosecutes his evil agenda.

Now some might say he gives Christians a bad name. He might, but only to the bigots who've decided already to hate Christians.

Here's a heartwarming article with photos showing the love between Christians and Muslims in Iraq. It's not front-page news because it doesn't bash any of the usual PC favorites: Christians, conservatives, Republicans, etc., but it's still worth a look because it's a reminder of what Christ taught, not what one evildoer is plotting somewhere in North Carolina.

Muslims aren't the only religion that has terrorists within their ranks. Christianity has plenty and they are particularly vicious. Both attack women and children. And their own kind.

rickace

but it's still worth a look because it's a reminder of what Christ taught, not what one evildoer is plotting somewhere in North Carolina.

There in lies the problem though - 'what Christ taught' is subjective to how a person chooses to interpret Biblical text. This is what YOU think Christ taught... but you can't prove that your interpretation is any better than the self proclaimed Christian Osama Bin Laden.

Thus, people either choose to justify violence through religion.... or they don't. The people who choose to justify it aren't any different - regardless of what religion it is. Same goes for those who choose not to commit acts of violence.

John Smith

Many are not satisfied that this is not about Islam. Can you blame them?

Yes, I can.

1.4+ billion people practice 'Islam' peacefully every single day; if the actions of a a few men are used to generalize 1.4+ billion people who've never done anything to anyone, then who's really to blame here: The 1.4 billion people who've done nothing... OR, the people who choose to falsely label innocent people?

Is building a controversial Mosque the way to assure non-Muslims that we are all on the same page? Many see this as an outright lack of empathy for our confusion and need for answers.

The 'mosque' is only controversial to those who are choosing to broadbrush all Muslims with the actions of a select few who claimed religion as their motivation for heinous acts - THAT'S the whole point.

Your bias couldn't be any more apparent as you arbitrarily label the 'mosque' as controversial. That's extremely loaded language. The 'mosque' was indeed NOT controversial until a bigoted and/or politically motivated mob made it controversial. So, to imply that a "controversial mosque' was being built by Muslims implies an element of malice on the part of Muslims...... tisk tisk.

Only the same old haters who always pop up their ugly heads are against Mosques in general. You should know this. If you don't you are only allowing yourself to see what you want, so it fits your agenda.

What does this mean? You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. It's widely circulated that 70+% of NYers oppose the 'mosque' - does that mean those 70% are the "same old, ugly headed haters"?

Dennis P McCann

Rickace, before you 'get something crystal clear,' read the comments in the thread.

I read your headline and your first comment. Both of them mischaracterize this man as a "Christian terrorist". First and foremost he's a sociopath who doesn't respect the lives of those in the clinic. There's nothing Christian about that.

That's what I was clarifying.

The headline would have been less sensational had it read "North Carolina man arrested ...". The way it reads now it draws the Newsvine loony-bigots like flies to manure.

John

That seems to be your contention, not mine. I explained that many if not most of those 70% have concerns that are not about hate or intolerance

Except, you didn't. What you said was this:

Planes filled with innocent people were flown in to buildings and men cheered and said it was the will of their God. We are all looking for answers. Many are not satisfied that this is not about Islam. Can you blame them?

You very DIRECTLY implied that people are justified in assuming that "this is about Islam", even though 1.4+ billlion Muslims pose no problem whatsoever.

You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point.....

Answer this one John: how can anyone assume that Islam is the problem without utilizing some form of hate or intolerance? Especially given the ENORMOUS number of peaceful Muslims in the world??

If it's not hate and/or intolerance, then it's downright stupidity......

Dennis P McCann

Yep. We may soon have some of these people in Congress. That's scary as hell.

Really now? Scary as hell? What I find scary as hell is a corrupt, clueless, reckless, and self-serving president, abetted by a power-crazed Speaker and a mindless majority of spendthrift Democrats in Congress.

Too many damned Obama worshippers in the country. Under his administration our national debt is growing at TWICE the rate it did under Bush. And nary a soul thinks that's a problem!

What we need in power are more people from either party who can balance the budget and put a leash on the manic in the Oval Office. I don't give a damn if they're Christians, Muslims, atheists, or Martians. If we don't, the U.S. in its present form may cease to exist.

Dennis

As for 'mischaracterizing' him.. read his words.

Don't you see Dennis.... he's not allowed to speak for himself.

Only *true* Christians get to decide who the other *true* Christians are ;) And of course, only *true* Christians have cornered the market on verifying the unverifiable which is religious doctrine........

Dennis

Yes, rickace, I do find the idea of Dominionists in Congress scary as hell. Anyone who would legislate by a religious text scares the hell out of me, no matter what text they might be using.

Bravo!

I recently wrote an article about this topic as well link

Agreed 100%

"Since I know to press you further will mean my account gets banned for having an outdated second account that I wasn't using"

Dennis, you know who this is don't you? The stalker troll that Tyler banned because he had two accounts, that's what he is talking about. Remember middleroad, Chas-1438802, NOT Dennis P McCann, and Jibreit? This is him. The banned troll is back with a fifth re-reg account.

John M Smith ...Ahhh - re-reg stalker troll!!! Ohhhh - coming back since you were pissed that you got banned for not playing by the rules. What a pathetic life you must lead.

http://lezgetreal.com/2010/09/fbi-arrests-christian-osama-bin-laden-justin-carl-moose/

Here is another article on the guy w/o all the "FOX" stuff.

D

Yes, rickace, I do find the idea of Dominionists in Congress scary as hell.

You mimic their superstitions. Boo! Halloween comes.

Imagine buying wrapped candies to dispense. Paint in oil five children at a doorstep in the 1960s.

Dennis P McCann

Exactly!!!!! And quite a few of these Dominionists are running for high office.

Yep. We may soon have some of these people in Congress. That's scary as hell.

It is why I refer to the Right Winge Chrisitian Extremists as the TaliBornAgain's and I for one damn sure don't want to see the likes of them in congress let alone in Control of either chamber.

Osama Bin Laden has claimed this terrorism in the name of Islam.

Just as Joseph Kony has claimed his murders in the name of Christianity.

1.4 million Muslims pose no problem UNLESS they allow evil to flourish by their silence or denial.

1.5 billion Christians pose no problem unless they allow evil to flourish. They haven't stopped this atrocity yet.... and the 'Christian' United States has remained inactive as well......

To say there is no link to Islam and terror is disingenuous at best.

To say there is no link to Christianity and terror is disingenuous at best. Since the very creation of Christianity, people have murdered other people in the name of it.

You may wish to think that because MOST do not support this violence in the name of Islam means it isn't real, but THAT is pure unadulterated self delusion and it serves no master BUT THE VIOLENCE.

You may wish to think that because MOST do not support this violence in the name of Christianity means it isn't real, but THAT is pure unadulterated self delusion and it serves no master BUT THE VIOLENCE.

Yes, and to say there is no link to Christianity and terror is just as wrong; this story is just one more that proves it. All religions have terrorists in their midst.

Yea. Proof of that existed a long time ago. If they haven't seen it yet...they never will.

The sad thing here is that most people blame the radicals of both religions. They are NOT radicals of either religion. They do not follow these religions. They are religious only in their own minds without following that religion! Islam and Christianity are peace loving and sharing religions. The extremists are trying to make their views part of these religions even though they are not following the tenets of these religions. It is too easy to blame the religion and not the extremists.

This is from an atheist who knows and loves many followers from both religions.

Well, that does it. No more Christian "victory" churches should be built in the US. It's not about religious freedom; it's about sensitivity. What is it that you people don't get? </sarc>

Perhaps it's important to reflect in what Christ taught us versus what some extremists see as the way to solve their own issues.

To be a Christian is diametrically oppsoed to reign by terror.

It seems so ironic that so many in this seed try to convince themselves that it is actually appropriate to compare islam with Christianity. While so many suffer in pakistan because of the floods and while so many other catastrophic events occur, it seems to me that the presence of Christianity is abundant.

Christian martyrs are people defending the truth with their lives... unlike others who try to impose their own truths by killing thousands of innocent bystanders only to produce terror and confusion.

It seems to me that in the Christian culture, unfortunatelly so much poluted by the secular society, idividfual freedom and responsibility is nurtured by love and forgiveness... unlike other places where forgiveness does not exist and women get stoned and children geth their hands cut.

The poor souls that are threatening other people might call themselves Christians but most certainly they are not behaiving like Christian.

There's nothing "Christian"like about blowing up a women's clinic........more like demented rednecks who have nothing else better to do with their time except cause more havoc for us in our own country.

They need to go and make people happy, now that's doing God's work......nutcases!

You know you're a redneck if you think women are only good for two.. Make that three things - Housework, looking pretty and making babies.

You know you're a redneck if you think women are only good for two.. Make that three things - Housework, looking pretty and making babies.

Having lived in the Southern US for most of my life, and having known a lot of sterotypical rednecks, I can tell you that your 2nd item is not a prerequisite. :)

The acceptable criteria begins and ends with one item: breathing.

Okay, hi. Agnostic here. I have one little question for all the Christians out there (and the radical kooks like this guy especially):

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" do you not understand? I mean, someone thought this simple sentence important enough that it appears not once, but TWICE in your bibles.

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."

Deuteronomy 5:17 "Thou shalt not kill."

Heck, I don't follow or even believe in your religion, but I know "Thou shalt not kill."

So many Christians, like other religious extremists, are so obsessed with forcing everyone else to follow their rules, but they so often fail to follow their own rules. What's the line about the plank and the splinter? Or judging not est ye be judged? Or people in glass houses?

But where is the righteous public denunciations of such terrorism from the Christian community? **crickets**

Hypocrites.

What part of lost in translation do you not understand…..

Exodus 20:13 Hebrew: la thrtzch :s (direct word for word translation: not you-shall-murder)

Deuteronomy 5:17 Hebrew: la thrtzch :s (direct word for word translation: not you-shall-murder_

there are many denunciations of the terrorism of those individuals who claim to be christian..but do not represent the Christian community.

The command is Thou shall not Murder. There is a big difference between kill and murder. Even in the OT there is a distinction made. Abortion comes under manslaughter; not murder.

there are many denunciations of the terrorism of those individuals who claim to be christian..but do not represent the Christian community.

you left something out ...

there are many denunciations of the terrorism of those individuals who claim to be christian or muslim ..but do not represent the Christian or Islam community.

There fixed that for ya.

I went to the local Borders bookstore today. Yes I understand that things get lost in translation over the millenia, that's part of why I don't believe most of what these ancient religions say. But at Borders I checked 4 different versions of the Bible... all said "Thou shalt not kill" in both verses. Granted, maybe the original Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever meant "murder" but that leaves me with two more questions:

1- Does the average Christian today know that the original OT meant "murder" and not "kill?"

2- From the perspective of the potential victims of religious extremist violence- are "muder" and "kill" really that different?

So are you saying that it's okay for religious terrorists like this nutjob to kill people, as long as he doesn't muder them? Or vice-versa? Seriously, that's your argument? So the next time some holier-than-thou Christian terrorist nutjob shoots an abortion doctor you'll breathe a sigh of relief that the doctor was only killed, not murdered?

Bore me not with your tired semantic justifications, killing and murdering are the same damned thing. My Roget's agrees. And any victim of such violence would agree as well.

You mean the catholics mis-interpreted the originals language....When all else fails go back to the ORIGINAL text.

Bore me not with your tired semantic justifications, killing and murdering are the same damned thing. My Roget's agrees.

But Vine's Concise Dictionary of the Bible disagrees with you and you Roget's. I myself, prefer the original source, the Old Testament. This is from where the Command began. Exodus 20:13 "Thou shall not murder"

KILL

Shachat: to slaughter kill. ie take the life of an animal or human. Genesis 22.10 "And Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son;" of animal for food, 1 Sam 14:32 "The troops bounced on the spoil; they took the sheep and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and the troops ate with the blood." 14:34 "And Saul ordered, Spread out among the troops and tell them that everybody must bring me his ox or sheep and slaughter it here, then eat the meat. Isa 22:13 "Instead, there was rejoicing and merriment, killing of cattle and slaughtering of sheep. eating of meat and drinking of wine: "Eat and drink. for tomorrow we die!" Of killing people; Judg 12:6 "they would say to him, Then say shibboleth; but he would say sibboleth,' not being able to pronounce it correctly. Thereupon they would slay him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty thousand Ephraimites fell at that time." 1 Kings 18:40 "Then Elijah said to them Seize the prophets of Baal, let not a single one of them get away.' they seized them, and Elijah took them down to the Wadi Kishon and slaughtered them there." 2 Kings 10 "But he has evil plans. His mind harbors evil designs; for he means to destroy, To wipe out nation, not a few."

Before we go on to Murder, Let us look at the meaning of Slaughter.

Verb, to slaughter, sacrifice. This word usually means to kill an animal for the use of making a sacrifice to God. ...The primary sacrifice was the blood offering which required the slaughter of an animal for eating.

Noun, "sacrifice" This noun occurs more than 160 times in biblical Hebrew. The"sacrifice" which was part of a covenant ritual involving the sprinkling of blood on the people and upon the alter, which presumably symbolized God as the covenant partner.

Now we can go on to murder. lWe have now learned that slaughter and sacrifice is the different than we believed.

Murder

rashach. to murder, occurs primarily in the legal material of the Old Testament, This is not a surprise, as God's law included regulationson life and provisions for dealing with the murderer. The Decalogue gives the general principle in a simple statement, which contains the first occurrence of the verb. "Thou shalt not murder"

The OT recognizes the distinction between premeditated murder and unintentional killing. In order to assure the rights of the manslayerwho unintentionally killed someone, thelaw provides for three cities of refuge. Accidental killing has different, less severe penalties.

Abortion is something entirely different. It should not be used as a method of birth control as it violates the command: "Be fertile, multiply, and fill the earth. It does not violate Thou shall not murder. The best example to give to prove this point is spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. If the fetus was alive, a person, would God eliminate it in the first trimester? No, he would not for then he would be committing premeditated murder. Spontaneous abortions show us that it is okay to abort the fetus in the first trimester.

God also gave us choice. Abortion is an individual choice and only God can judge the individual.

For you pro-lifers: Don't you realize that by judging on abortion or any other individual right, you are putting own life in jeopardy because you are breaking God's second most important command, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

My Roget's agrees.

It may agree with you as you are thinking in today's terms and not in biblical terms.

Not sure when Christians decided to reinterpret it as 'murder,' but I can say with certainty that it's relatively new

Relatively new? This command as "Murder" goes back to the Original Text.

I would suggest that Christian's spend some time in study of the OT so that they can better understand the NT. My study comes from a Christian concordance and dictionary.

I would suggest that Christian's spend some time in study of the OT

How about reading the Torah....it leaves out a lot of the "typos" in the NT.

It says "murder".....the only difference in my mind is war. State sanctioned executions are still murder.

sorry typo;

it leaves out a lot of the "typos" in the NT.

Should be OT vs NT....sorry.

I think people are getting a little too bogged down in the semantic minutae and missing the big picture here.

We have a terrorist on our hands. He wants to kill people (or murder them, not sure which). He has called himself the Christian equivalent to Osama Bin Laden. He believes that he is a Holy Warrior and that killing (or murdering) people is an act of devotion to his god.

So are you saying that if only his Bible had printed "Thou shalt not murder" instead of "Thou shalt not kill" then everything would be fine and he'd be a peaceful well-adjusted yoga instructor somewhere? Seriously?

You may think that the historical etymology of those two Bible verses is absolutely fascinating, and I'm sure you could debate the intent of the original writers all night long. BUT- I really don't think the nutjob in question really gives a rat's ass about any of that. I really don't think he cares about the semantic difference between "kill" and "murder." And I'm pretty damn sure that the victims of this terrorist's violent outbursts, present or future, don't give a rat's ass about it either.

He is a terrorist. Agreed? He uses religion to justify his terrorism. Agreed? If he had his way many people would be dead- you, me, anybody. Agreed? So when some radical religious terrorist nutjob points a high-powered rifle at your chest, are you going to try to explain to him the difference between "killing" and "murdering?"

Godd luck with that. How 'bout we just cut to the chase, agree that he is a terrorist and throw him in jail for a long long long long time. Okay?

What part of lost in translation do you not understand…..

Exodus 20:13 Hebrew: la thrtzch :s (direct word for word translation: not you-shall-murder)

Deuteronomy 5:17 Hebrew: la thrtzch :s (direct word for word translation: not you-shall-murder_

there are many denunciations of the terrorism of those individuals who claim to be christian..but do not represent the Christian community.

I don't see the word "abortion" in there.

Abortion is something entirely different. It should not be used as a method of birth control

Abortion is a form of birth control but it's not recommended or meant to be used in the same fashion as the pill or a condom.

What ever you say.....abortion is ending a LIFE.

Abortion ends a pregnancy, also in the first trimester a fetus isn't really alive. Next, late-term abortions are very rare. Also, women are not expendable.

Abortion is ending a potential life. So is the monthly period for ladies and any kind of ejaculation for men :( It's still a woman's choice to carry a pregnancy or not. And that is the way it should be. It isn't the Gov that would have a tiny fetus inside of their belly growing into a human baby literally sucking the life force/blood of it's host to achieve an eventual Independence.. For some this is peace on earth. For others it's a nightmare. And still for some it's a health hazard. Whatever the reason, one should have the right to choose to have a baby or not - even after conception.

The fetus isn't alive in the first trimester.

Really? Look up the definition of a living organism.

Why don't you. And FYI: "God" is not a living organism and neither is Jesus. The bible also isn't a living organism.

As science defines it, to be living, a thing must be capable of growth, reproduction and metabolism.

He is only dead to those who don't know him.

Auteur 1536. What is the fetus before the three month period? Non existent? Because death it is not.

I think you should look a bit closer to the whole. This is a matter of human dignity over and above the fact that unless you can describe otherwise, life starts at conception and through natural death.

Human life can only start at conception because it is when the union of one man and one woman make possible the miracle of life, human life in this case and yes, a miracle because of the wonderful event that take place, where love is born again in the body being formed of a new human person. The fact that the body is not completely formed, does not remove an atom of humanity and therefore of dignity.

God has given you the freedom to chose on your own, for instance, not to believe in Him. That will not mean that He does not exist but that you, refuse to see Him and love Him. When one man and one woman decide to engage they make a choice, but they do have to live with the consequences, especially because a third person is being formed out of that union and whom needs to be treated with the same dignity expected by the parents of the child.

Why is it so difficult to simply take responsibility?

Human life can only start at conception ...

That is only one opinion. There are other opinions held just as tightly as yours.

Are you supporting bombing of women's clinics? (topic of this seed).

Are you supporting killing of people who hold a different belief about when life starts? (Outcome of action if the Christian terrorist had been successful.)

Do you believe that a doctor and his/her patient are not capable of determining what needs to be done for the patient? (Existing law in this country says they can up through the 3rd trimester.)

Why is it so difficult to simply take responsibility?

Who is not taking responsibility? That is quite a confusing statement.

Organism

"Definition

noun, plural: organisms

(Science: Biology)

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

Notice the part about "Maintain homeostasis".

"Homeostasis

Definition

noun

(Science: Biology)

(1) The tendency of an organism or a cell to regulate its internal conditions, usually by a system of feedback controls, so as to stabilize health and functioning, regardless of the outside changing conditions

(2) The ability of the body or a cell to seek and maintain a condition of equilibrium or stability within its internal environment when dealing with external changes

Supplement

In humans, homeostasis happens when the body regulates body temperature in an effort to maintain an internal temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. For example, we sweat to cool off during the hot summer days, and we shiver to produce heat during the cold winter season.

Word origin: from the Greek: homeo, meaning unchanging + stasis, meaning standing.
Related forms: homeostatic (adjective)."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homeostasis

Last I checked an embryo couldn't maintain internal stability when dealing with external change. It's completely dependant on another life to provide it's maintenance. Am I wrong?

RAC 0129.

Is it only an opinion that you are alive.. or not, or that you are worth? Life is a fact, and starts at conception. If your opinion is different, you must have a point to substantiate that opinion. Otherwise the risk is that your opinion also might be that you consider bystanders in any street, not worth keeping alive or rather not being truly and really, alive and so, your 'justification' for murder. So. What is your point to support such an idea?

James ca

So. What exactly are you saying, that you are nothing but an organism? Do you believe in your own dignity? Protection of human life, which by the way, starts at conception and through natural death, is based on the dignity of the human person. Scientists that disregard this fact, of course can come with many ways to try clearing their souls, not, their minds, they probably not believe in having a soul, not the 'others' anyways, by building any sort of statements without ever making clear when a person starts being a person.

Sorry but I do not understand what the comment is about for Dennis P McCann

Is it only an opinion that you are alive.. or not, or that you are worth?

I did not say that. Stop placing words I have not said.

Life is a fact,

OK

and starts at conception.

Your opinion. There are others.

If your opinion is different, you must have a point to substantiate that opinion.

There are several opinions as to when a life "starts." Some believe as you that is is at conception. Some believe that it is not until when the first breath is taken and quote scripture about the "breath of life." Some believe it is not until a herat has developed. SOme believe it is not until there is brain functions Some believe it is not until a certain perioid - first trimester, 2nd trimester etc.

There - enough other opinions for you.

Otherwise the risk is that your opinion also might be that you consider bystanders in any street, not worth keeping alive or rather not being truly and really, alive and so, your 'justification' for murder.

Again - you opinion that life starts at concception is an opinion that is not universally held. Murder is a legal term. The law of thew land is Roe Vs Wade which provides very specifically when and what needs to occur. The primary decision for the 1st trimester lies between a woman and her doctor. After that, terminating a pregnancy requires additional consulotation and it needs to be shown the life of the mother is in danger.

So. What is your point to support such an idea?

See above. Now - I will answer no more of your questions iuntil you have answered mine.

Are you supporting bombing of women's clinics? (topic of this seed).

Are you supporting killing of people who hold a different belief about when life starts? (Outcome of action if the Christian terrorist had been successful.)

Do you believe that a doctor and his/her patient are not capable of determining what needs to be done for the patient? (Existing law in this country says they can.)

Where is your proof that the group of "cells" at conception are not a living organism?

The comment wasn't a personal attack, it was stating the obvious which the person the comment was for that they couldn't comprehend.

Human life can only start at conception because it is when the union of one man and one woman make possible

So what does that make the rest of the cells in our bodies? Non-human life because they didn't begin when "the union of one man and one woman" made them possible?

Why is it so difficult to simply take responsibility?

Choosing abortion is being responsible.

And anti-choicers do walk around with their heads up their butts. Similar to hiding your head in the sand but the crap takes longer to clean out of the eyes and ears.

A fetus is no more alive than a tumor. That sounds offencive but is it not true? A fetus can not live on it's own. It is a part of another living being. A tumor is living cells too. And cesarfs: Are you a 100% vegan? Or is just human life worthy of your respect to such a degree? And why? How do you feel about the more than 100,000 U.S. documented Iraqi civilian human deaths that occurred as a result of our country wrongfully terroristicly invading Iraq? Are the deaths justified in any way? Just curious... It would help me feel where you are coming from. And yes I do have dignity and self respect. And yes I do go out of my way to protect human life when ever possible. Including the life of the mother (not just physical life, also moral, psychological, social & work life ect...) But what is going on inside someones womb is their biz. If you want to look at it rationally, having a baby is very life changing. Often it requires you (a parent) to sacrifice your life and who you want to be - which is effectively a life lost. You have to give up who you were and become someone new - someone you may not want to be. It can make your life miserable. And then the child's life is compromised due to lacking parents - and nobody is happy. Abortion allows families to be only joyous and wanted. Why should a woman who has her life just like she wants it who gets pregnant be obligated to give up her life for another if they do not want to? Sorry, she was born first, she has first dibs on life.

Including the life of the mother (not just physical, also MORALE, psychological...

james ca. /

A fetus is no more alive than a tumor.

How ever their is a great difference....one has the potential to develope into a seperate being the other does not.

True, there is potential. And the mother has already begun and is well on her journey with her life. She is already living her potential. If she does not want to dedicate it to a child, then that is just fine with me. Why should the mother sacrifice her life for the sake of another against her will? Either way a life is lost, at least for someone who does not want the child or the direction parenthood would take their lives. Why should a living being suffer so a potential living being won't? - which is very questionable in the first place (the fetus feeling pain) if there is no brain to process the pain - If you want the child that is reason enough alone. If you do not want the child then ending the pregnancy is ending/preventing needless suffering. If the mother wants that potential to herself then let her keep it. It's her's to give.

How ever their is a great difference....one has the potential to develope into a seperate being the other does not.

So it's not a human then. It only has the potential to become a human. Therefore, abortion isn't murder.

Finally! I can put a couple of words here...

This is not about a cell being protected nor is is just any bunch of cells. The point is the dignity of human life. Life starts at conception by two cells, one the sperm and the other the egg, being fecundated by the former. Every part of the process then on belongs to human life in the process of being formed and so deserving of the dignity every human is entitled to.

Playing with words or putting zillions of replies delaying the answer, is not proving anything and will not prove anything because life does not need other prove than seeing the whole process and the wonderful miracle it is and what it means in the life of a person, the creation of God, conceived hopefully from love and form a loving family from a marriage that can only be of one man and one woman.

The protection of human life cannot be challenged by science nor can life itself.

And the mother already is a human life in action. Her life comes first. If she wants the baby then fine. Her life has first priority in receiving dignity. She deserves all the respect in the world in making her own decision. If you are born you will die, unless you are immortal. Just to say because someone is conceived that their life all of a sudden overrides all other life already in full bloom is silly in my mind.

How many people here who are so against abortion eat meat? Do you not understand that when looking into the eyes of an animal there is a soul somewhere in there? Why are you not 100% vegan? Do you watch where you walk as not to step on ants throughout the day? Just how sacred is life to you?

I am not making light of abortion, I am stressing the full weight/reality of parenthood, especially motherhood/pregnancy. There is dignity in life, any life - I can respect that. And I can respect how someone who feels anything after conception should be treated as a human being would morn an abortion as a loss of life. I am sure many/most people who do have abortions even feel this way and morn the loss of a potential life or an actual life afterwards. Same with many/most pro-choice people. Still, having a baby is life changing. For some it is too life changing. And we have this tool to adjust their life so that it stays on the course that they have chosen. It's also a life saving tool. And then there's pregnancy by rape or incest. Woman are not just ovens in the kitchen waiting for some man to stick some raw dough in them to bake a baby. They are a life too, with human brains & needs & desires that they have the right to respect.

Love, love is the word you should work on... Love is what us humans have that distinguishes us from other species. Love is giving, never ever expecting retribution or reward, just and only giving. A mother, a true mother; personifies love by giving everything for her children, in many cases even her own life. Not just her life style, which the love of a mother easily gives away for the sake of her children, but her actual life. That is what love is about. On the father side, the truth is not too much different as he is the provider, despite what feminist conjectures might find attractive to their 'cause'.

Destruction of life in the case of abortion; is nothing but a way for some woman not wanting to be mother, not responding to her nature, not wanting to be responsible for the decisions or choices she already made, trying then to blame society or worst to destroy everything society stands for, only so that she can claim some absurd right of choosing.. choosing what? to kill? Or,of course, some self defined 'doctor' trying to make money from her predicaments and doubts and anguish.

You can overpopulate the discussion with argument after argument while ignoring the dignity of babies, and women, because it is everyone who suffers by the decision of exterminating a trace of love form the womb of a woman who is in need of support of comfort so to go ahead with raising the innocent human being being formed in her. There cannot possibly be any comfort in destroying life and her dignity. A crime is a crime, is a crime, and cannot be erased just because you or some politician or pseudo-doctor, decides to make it 'profitable'.

That is a beautiful opinion. Looks real good in the mirror I must admit - and on paper too (most likely scriptural). I can see where you are coming from. And I would suggest that you take part in as great a war as possible against abortion using soft tactics such as sex education, handing out condoms at concerts or go to school for eight years to become a doctor and dedicate your medical career to discussing birth control with woman and/or men. I am sure if you did that, with your passion - you could sway more than one woman from having an abortion, perhaps preventing many many abortions in a compassionate/empathetic/tolerant way. Just don't tred on my rights. You can answer to your god in your own terms. And we - others- can too (or answer to themselves).

And since you bring up nature and motherhood and the nature of motherhood. You say it is a mothers nature to always give her life/lifestyle to her child. In nature they do not have birth control as we do, but parents do give priority to their lives sometimes (over their child's) for many reasons including evolutionarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

@CesarSF

Your prose has some serious deficiencies. Your are extremely myopic in your definition especially about expecting everyone to view pregnancy as a positive thing. Many circumstances are in play her and not just your narrow view of the world. Let's list few:

Minor girl raped and impregnated by father or brother or step father
Minor girl raped and impregnated by boyfriend
Woman raped and impregnated
Woman's birth control fails. Health is in danger if carries to term.
Woman has no desire to have more children and birth control fails. Can not afford any more medical or child costs.

Now - why won't you specifically answer my questions above.

Or a woman has a serious history of/recent excess hard drug use and the growth of the fetus has been compromised. Or an examination of a sonogram and such shows that the fetus is developing very abnormally and could not possibly produce a child with any real chance of survival outside the womb.

Abortion of pregnancy, is the termination of a human being life, as clear as that. It is an assault to human dignity. It is not about women dignnity but against it too, because it removes her humanity.

Selfishness cannot justify nor can give any humanity to abortion.

To present any case of rape as a jhustification to terminate a human life is nothing but an excuse to try to erase a terrible even with an even more terrifying one. One kill cannot erase the crime of rape and cannot possibly give the victim any comfort, specially knowing that a human being, her son or daughter was killed so that she could feel 'better'(?)

The absurdity of pretending to be 'avoiding' abortions, not by exercising abstinence, but by promoting promiscuity by suggesting that a condom saves a baby is francly out of context.

Abortion is a crime and must be looked at as such.

I see it as affirming her humanity. She is taking control of her own destiny. Jesus, the man, would be proud.

CesarFS - Abortion is a crime and must be looked at as such.

You are wrong. Abortion is a legal procedure and must be looked as such. If you are against abortion, don't have one.

Well Cesar. You would be @!$%#ing wrong on all accounts.

For you to impose your religious bull@!$%# on someone who has been brutalized is about the most offensive thing someone can feel for another human. May your sister, wife, relative never be raped son they won't have to suffer the uncaring and horrific insult of carrying to term something which will remind them each and every day of that violation. @!$%#ing pathetic.

RAC 0129 ------a lot of it depends on the person.....my wife was raped and our daughter was a result of that rape and she is nothing but a blessing to our lives and was in truth a large part of the healing process. A strong person with the help of God can overcome anything....try it you might overcome your hate.

TruettCollins, I'm so happy that choice worked out for your wife and your family, many women don't have that type of family support after a rape. Good for you guys! However, just because it was a positive result for your family it doesn't mean it will be a positive result for all women, otherwise we'd all play and win the lottery, right?

Boy parts touch girl parts. It happens. Abstinence just leads to ignorance - it doesn't work in the real world - it leads to girls getting pregnant from toilet seats and bathroom abortions that end in the death of all involved. Oh and don't forget sexually transmitted diseases. Because abstinence all too often leads to ill informed sexual relations that are hidden at all cost - often due to extreme shame. You are probably against teachings to young children about tolerance of homosexuals/lgbt/anti-bullying too?

And the point is? ...right! it is still human dignity being assaulted and ignored.

Of course the issue is sex and nothing but sex, everything else is just an excuse, or an inconvenience.

The truth is however that babies are killed and excuses made to try living with the crime and of course, abstinence is what? 'leading to ignorance'... of the real world of course. So the point ends up being slavery to sex as the epitome of knowledge which of course 'demands' that everything and anything, not excluding, human beings, be taken of the way of the 'freedom' to depend on sexual injections so that the habit can grow and slavery live!

Babies are still being sacrificed to the non-religion, religion of sexual dependency and the 'choice' of being at anytime, anywhere, however is the case, ready to 'engage' because there is no consequence and certainly not accountability, because sex is what people is born for and live for.

But sex is not an end or a goal, that is for people that are unable to socialize and need to resort to be objects of pleasure and nothing else. Love is what matters which of course has sexual engagement as a vital component but which marks the beginning of life, a new life product of a union of one man and one woman in love for each other and to each other, giving themselves to each other and who cannot find 'comfort' in destroying their consummation of that love as an escape to their responsibilities.

I think it is clear where you are in this issue. My position is that of seeing human dignity from our creation by God, the one and only living One, and children as the blessing they are and knowledge to be one of the gifts from the Holy Spirit.

I will keep praying for you to reflect on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

The truth is however that babies are killed and excuses made to try living with the crime and of course,

And the truth is that those who kill babies go to jail. If you know of anyone killing babies please all the police immediately!

Abortion of pregnancy, is the termination of a human being life

It's not a human. It's an embryo and then a fetus, both of which have the potential to become a human after they are born.

It is an assault to human dignity.

It is an assault to women and girls and their rights, well being and dignity to treat them like criminals for having an abortion.

It is not about women dignnity but against it too, because it removes her humanity.

Taking away abortion removes women's and girls' humanity. Taking away abortion means that women and girls aren't allowed to have a say in what happens to their body. Women and girls are not baby factories.

Selfishness cannot justify nor can give any humanity to abortion.

Abortion is very unselfish. The very opposite of what people like the Duggars are doing.

To present any case of rape as a jhustification to terminate a human life is nothing but an excuse to try to erase a terrible even with an even more terrifying one. One kill cannot erase the crime of rape and cannot possibly give the victim any comfort, specially knowing that a human being, her son or daughter was killed so that she could feel 'better'(?)

The phrase I'd love to use to describe you would get this post deleted but it ends with a "b".

The absurdity of pretending to be 'avoiding' abortions, not by exercising abstinence, but by promoting promiscuity by suggesting that a condom saves a baby is francly out of context.

As said before, the phrase ends with a "b."

Abortion is a crime and must be looked at as such.

I bet you'd have your own daughter punished too. Let's punish all women by raping them with the help of the government and locking them up for life in prison, including underaged girls. Ruin their lives because they were in control of their bodies.

it is still human dignity being assaulted and ignored.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Plain and simple. And condoms and pills aren't 100% effective and if you say "They should keep their legs closed" I'll run you so far into the ground you'll end up in Antarctica.

Of course the issue is sex and nothing but sex, everything else is just an excuse, or an inconvenience.

To ignorant anti-choicers who consider women to be baby vessels and sluts.

The truth is however that babies are killed and excuses made to try living with the crime and of course

They only "live with the crime" because anti-choicers like you deliberately harass and terrorize them to make them feel bad. I wouldn't be surprised if you lot started doing what that bastard did to Tiller only you're killing women and girls walking into and leaving clinics.

abstinence is what? 'leading to ignorance'... of the real world of course.

Abstinence is bull@!$%#. It raises the rates of pregnancy, especially among teens, as well as the rates of contracting STD's.

So the point ends up being slavery to sex as the epitome of knowledge which of course 'demands' that everything and anything, not excluding, human beings, be taken of the way of the 'freedom' to depend on sexual injections so that the habit can grow and slavery live!

The only slaves will be those who are forced to carry pregnancies and give birth against their wills while children waiting to be adopted will never be adopted because the anti-choicers keep stealing their chances away by adding more kids to the adoption lists.

Babies are still being sacrificed to the non-religion, religion of sexual dependency and the 'choice' of being at anytime, anywhere, however is the case, ready to 'engage' because there is no consequence and certainly not accountability, because sex is what people is born for and live for.

More of your bull@!$%# and misogyny. What will you say next?

But sex is not an end or a goal, that is for people that are unable to socialize and need to resort to be objects of pleasure and nothing else.

People who are unable to stay out of other people's business will resort to turning women into reproduction slaves and nothing else.

Love is what matters which of course has sexual engagement as a vital component but which marks the beginning of life, a new life product of a union of one man and one woman in love for each other and to each other, giving themselves to each other and who cannot find 'comfort' in destroying their consummation of that love as an escape to their responsibilities.

It's not a requirement that women and girls get pregnant every time they have sex.

I think it is clear where you are in this issue. My position is that of seeing human dignity from our creation by God, the one and only living One, and children as the blessing they are and knowledge to be one of the gifts from the Holy Spirit.

Yeah because God's son was also created by rape so it makes sense you fanatics would be for raping women and taking away their rights to choose and say "no."

I will keep praying for you to reflect on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

Why do you people feel the need to pray for everyon? Where in the bible does it say to force your religious beliefs on others?

Better yet, where in the bible is the word "abortion" mentioned?

You can repeat yourself whatever you want and still the truth will come back to you. When abortion of pregnancy is performed a human being is terminated. A human being life starts at conception and is dignifiied since that very moment.

Call it embryo or fetus or baby or child or teen or adult or midle ager or elder or senile... human beings all of them, entitled to the same treatment and dignity as human beings they are.

Abortion is not a matter only of choice for a woman, regardless of her circumstances, but about the destruction of life that takes place. The rights of the woman are intact, because her freedoms are not altered, except her chioices might be going agains another human life and that cannot be acceptable, under any circumstance, unless of course is a matter of self-defense in which case, it hardly can be seen a baby, embrio or fetus, threatening her, and even then, women nature is prepared, as in many case, to let her children live even if they have to die in the process.

It is good to see that you immediatly go to the Bible looking for answers, the only problem seems to be that you appear to be looking for the answers you will want to find and not what is there for you as reference.

Praying is always a good idea, especially when the world in our times is so focussed in the destruction of life, family and marriage.

I agree, family is under attack in America. Let's start reinforcing family values by allowing Gay couples to marry and adopt children! Unless you are against family cohesion. I am so tired of rightious @!$%#s limiting potential secure family structures.

A human being life starts at conception and is dignifiied since that very moment.

So does that mean the rest of the cells in our bodies aren't human because they weren't "created" via "conception"?

Praying is always a good idea, especially when the world in our times is so focussed in the destruction of life, family and marriage.

If that's true then why has "God" allowed the situations in the Congo, Sudan, Darfur, the Middle East - where women and girls are raped, forced into marriage, killed for being raped or going against their parents wishes - to continue? Why does God allow divorce to happen? Why does God allow parents to disown their daughters if they are pregnant or their children if they turn out to be gay? Why does God allow children to go homeless because people would rather get pregnant than adopt? Prayer - along with the belief in God or overall any deity - is bull@!$%#.

James. Family reinforced by the fallacious 'gay marriage'? Marriage can ONLY be a union between one man and one woman, and nothing else...

Auteur 1536. Maybe you should ask God all those things... and ask yourself too, because I think you are conditioning your idea of 'god' to be at your service to please you. That, I think, could work, but you have to focus more in the concept of loving and humility rather than on that of receiving and only, receiving.

Love is the answer you are looking for and of course, placing God over and above everything and anything.

You are not a bystander, or rather cannot expect to be just one and at the same time bring all these issues forward throwing them to God.

James. Family reinforced by the fallacious 'gay marriage'?

Fallicious? Says you. Several states and several million people say otherwise.

Marriage can ONLY be a union between one man and one woman, and nothing else...

Says you. Several states and several million people say otherwise.

Auteur 1536. Maybe you should ask God all those things...

I leave that to Auteur. She is more than capable or providing you with a "Keep you religious views out of our governance." by herself.

and ask yourself too, because I think you are conditioning your idea of 'god' to be at your service to please you. That, I think, could work, but you have to focus more in the concept of loving and humility rather than on that of receiving and only, receiving.

Self righteous and self appointed proclomations of psycho-analysis over the Internets. Hmmm - arrogance comes to mind very quickly.

Love is the answer you are looking for and of course, placing God over and above everything and anything.

Love does not require God. The second is a personal issue for religious zealots.

You are not a bystander, or rather cannot expect to be just one and at the same time bring all these issues forward throwing them to God.

Personal opinion and a bunch or word salad nonense.

If scripture & family & life are as valuable to you as it seems, then how is it not disrespectful to legislate such revered teachings into mans law by the will of a few but not all? And with the same expectation of respect and obedience and even more since not only will you be damned in the after world but thanks to people like you - damned in this world too? And not even by Gods laws which execute themselves w/o the assistance of man, but by mans laws alone - with the blasphemous claim of being the word of God out of the mouth of man. Out right claiming false anyone who tells you their experience with God is more tolerant of love and has more empathy for difficult situations in life!?! Their connection with God is no less than your own. Only ego says otherwise. Who are you to deny their experience with God by forcefully replacing it with your own experience with God? Are you the son of God here to lead us to salvation? Then get out of the pants of people who are in love with each other. And give the respect you demand of us all towards the bible and such directly to the bible and such yourself. Let others have their own connection with God and let them decide what is right and what is wrong concerning who they love. Let them decide with God what to do when contemplating an abortion. Stop attempting to blasphemously take the place of God and (with disgusting self-righteousness and pompousness) dictate to others what God demands of them through threat of immediate harm by mans laws made by people like you who somehow feel you have been empowered to be the earthly strong arm of the Lord. You are no earthly God. You have no special connection that anyone else does not have. And even in the teachings you claim to follow from head to tail, there is no teaching to take the all giving power of God and force it apon all you see. For this shall put all others in your personal shadow and thus you shall stand between them and the full opportunity to experience God on their own terms. You demand all experience God on your own terms. Ego. Pure ego. Not God & not Godly.

Wonderfully said james ca., thank you! I wish I could vote your post up 1 million times!

Maybe you should ask God all those things...

Uh no because 1) I don't believe in God, 2) God never existed to begin with, 3) Keep your religious bull@!$%# out of my uterus. Keep your religious bull@!$%# out of the government and politics too. Religion is a private matter. It's not to be publicized

Love is the answer you are looking for and of course

No it's not, unless you're one of those people who likes getting beaten to a pulp on a daily basis.

A short list of people who don't deserve love,

1. Misogynists - rapists, wife/daughter beaters, people who verbally abuse women, people who take away women's rights - by use of lies, manipulation, scare tactics and guilt - such as the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
2. Sex offenders - people who sexually abuse others
3. Murderers - people who kill others in cold blood and for pleasure

Abortion is not murder because the fetus isn't a real person, unless the individual pregnant woman/girl carrying it decides it is, and abortion is one of the most unselfish decisions a woman/girl can make.

placing God over and above everything and anything.

So if your kid was dying and your religion and God was against medication and modern medical treatment you'd put your religion and God first and let your kid die? Or if your religion and God said to rape your wife - in other words, that your wife must submit to you any time you want sex even if she doesn't want to have it - would you rape her because your religion and God are more important than her right to choose to say "no"?