Should those who kill abortion doctors get the death penalty?

[Luis Gonzalez]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

[RIP Robert H Bork]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Yes (pro-life), murder is murder, no matter who the victim or what the reason is.  If man shed another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.  That's my philosophy.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

You are not pro life then.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

You are not pro life then.

Why?

Because you don't say so?

Who cares what you say?

I am pro-life, but I don't believe that you have a right to engage the force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

God's gift to Man was free will, and He told us, in no uncertain terms, of the consequences of the choices we make.

If God gave Man the freedom to sin, who are you to tell anyone that they can't?

Who made you God?

I won't be debatng this with you any longer, until you summon up the courage to craft a response longer than half a dozen words.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

You are not pro life then.

Why?

Because you don't say so?

Who cares what you say?

I am pro-life, but I don't believe that you have a right to engage the force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

God's gift to Man was free will, and He told us, in no uncertain terms, of the consequences of the choices we make.

If God gave Man the freedom to sin, who are you to tell anyone that they can't?

Who made you God?

I won't be debatng this with you any longer, until you summon up the courage to craft a response longer than half a dozen words.

Because you cannot be pro life and pro choice at the same time. That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

You are not pro life then.

Why?

Because you don't say so?

Who cares what you say?

I am pro-life, but I don't believe that you have a right to engage the force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

God's gift to Man was free will, and He told us, in no uncertain terms, of the consequences of the choices we make.

If God gave Man the freedom to sin, who are you to tell anyone that they can't?

Who made you God?

I won't be debatng this with you any longer, until you summon up the courage to craft a response longer than half a dozen words.

Because you cannot be pro life and pro choice at the same time. That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

I am not pro-choice, I am pro-lfe, but I am against government intervention in this area.

I will counsel anyone considering an abortion against having one.

I'll repeat myself...the fact  that you can't understand my personal position on this subject, has zero impact on my personal position on this subject. Nor does it make it wrong in any way.

Roe v. Wade took government out of the abortion question, and put that decision right where God intended it to be...in our hands.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

A doctor who performs an abortion is engaging in a legal activity, the person who kills him is clearly not.

If the death is the penalty for premeditated murder in the State we're discussing, then the person who killed that Doctor should be punished in accordance with the law.

I'm both pro-life, and pro Roe v. Wade.

Corrected.

Excuse me...the day I need you to correct me, I'll call you and give you the authority to do so.

Don't saddle me with your limitations.

I believe in personal responsibility, and limited government...Roe v. Wade has never, nor will it ever, force anyone to have an abortion, and as such, it makes the government a neutral entity into what is a deeply personal decision between a woman, and her God.

That satisfies both my needs. I couldn't possibly care less about whether it is a satisfactory explanation to you, or not.
 

I corrected your remark about being "both pro life, and pro Roe v. Wade". That is a contradiction.

As I said, do not saddle me with your limitations; the fact that a contradiction exists in your mind, has no impact on my statement.

I don't believe that the government should either force citizens to have abortions, or stop them; I don't think that the government CAN stop a woman who wants to have an abortion from having one. In order to efficiently stop women from having abortions, the government would have to physically stop pregnant women from leaving the country, or punish women who leave the country pregnant, and return visibly NOT pregnant. I have no desire tro live in that country.

The decision  to abort belongs with the woman, as she will bear the ultimate responsibility or her action when faced with her Maker.

I also stated that I believe in personal responsibility, and that belief disallows me from imposing my choices on you...I would truly create a contradiction by doing that. Imposing my personal choices on you via force of government constitutes tyranny.

I have no need for you to settle whatever contradiction my choices create in your mind, nor do I expect that you do...it is irrelevant to me.

You are not pro life then.

Why?

Because you don't say so?

Who cares what you say?

I am pro-life, but I don't believe that you have a right to engage the force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

God's gift to Man was free will, and He told us, in no uncertain terms, of the consequences of the choices we make.

If God gave Man the freedom to sin, who are you to tell anyone that they can't?

Who made you God?

I won't be debatng this with you any longer, until you summon up the courage to craft a response longer than half a dozen words.

Because you cannot be pro life and pro choice at the same time. That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

I am not pro-choice, I am pro-lfe, but I am against government intervention in this area.

I will counsel anyone considering an abortion against having one.

I'll repeat myself...the fact  that you can't understand my personal position on this subject, has zero impact on my personal position on this subject. Nor does it make it wrong in any way.

Roe v. Wade took government out of the abortion question, and put that decision right where God intended it to be...in our hands.

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal. One's being pro life means that he believes that abortion should not be legal. That is exactly why being pro life and pro choice at the same time is impossible.

Your being "against government intervention in this area" suggests that you are pro choice. Given that you said that right after saying "I am pro-life", of course that is a contradiction.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal.

No...that is how YOU define beng pro-choice. Onced again, do not saddle me with your limited ideas on this subject.

Here is a question for you, who obviously believes that abortions should be "illegal."

What punishment would you have a Court hand down to a fifteen year-old girl for havng an abortion?

What punishment should a Court impose on her parents, if found guilty of aiding and and abbeting her in the process?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal.

No...that is how YOU define beng pro-choice. Onced again, do not saddle me with your limited ideas on this subject.

Here is a question for you, who obviously believes that abortions should be "illegal."

What punishment would you have a Court hand down to a fifteen year-old girl for havng an abortion?

What punishment should a Court impose on her parents?

How then do YOU define it? You are trying to escape the title of "pro choice", this time by rejecting how I define it, but you have not explained WHY my definition is incorrect, nor have you provided an alternative definition. And now, a question for you: how am I "saddling" you with "limited ideas"?

Also, I do believe indeed that abortion should be illegal, no need for the quotation marks.

As to your question...it depends. The information that you have provided is too vague.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal.

No...that is how YOU define being pro-choice. Once again, do not saddle me with your limited ideas on this subject.

Here is a question for you, who obviously believes that abortions should be "illegal."

What punishment would you have a Court hand down to a fifteen year-old girl for having an abortion?

What punishment should a Court impose on her parents?

How then do YOU define it? You are trying to escape the title of "pro choice", this time by rejecting how I define it, but you have not explained WHY my definition is incorrect, nor have you provided an alternative definition. And now, a question for you: how am I "saddling" you with "limited ideas"?

Also, I do believe indeed that abortion should be illegal, no need for the quotation marks.

As to your question...it depends. The information that you have provided is too vague.

I quoted you, quotations were called for.

"Vague?"

A fifteen year-old pregnant girl gets an illegal abortion with her patrent's assistance.

What should her punishment be under the law?

What should her parent's punishment be?

That's not "vague" in the least bit.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal.

No...that is how YOU define beng pro-choice. Onced again, do not saddle me with your limited ideas on this subject.

Here is a question for you, who obviously believes that abortions should be "illegal."

What punishment would you have a Court hand down to a fifteen year-old girl for havng an abortion?

What punishment should a Court impose on her parents?

How then do YOU define it? You are trying to escape the title of "pro choice", this time by rejecting how I define it, but you have not explained WHY my definition is incorrect, nor have you provided an alternative definition. And now, a question for you: how am I "saddling" you with "limited ideas"?

Also, I do believe indeed that abortion should be illegal, no need for the quotation marks.

As to your question...it depends. The information that you have provided is too vague.

I quoted you, quoatatons were called for.

"Vague?"

A fifteen year-old pregnant, gets an illegal abortion with her patrent's assistance.

What shoukd her punishment be under the law?

What shoud her parent's punishment be?

That's not "vague" in the least bit.

Yes, that information alone is not sufficient to determine the punishment, and therefore is too vague.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which is just about exactly what "pro choice" means. One's being pro choice means that he believes that abortion should be legal.

No...that is how YOU define Bengt pro-choice. Once again, do not saddle me with your limited ideas on this subject.

Here is a question for you, who obviously believes that abortions should be "illegal."

What punishment would you have a Court hand down to a fifteen year-old girl for having an abortion?

What punishment should a Court impose on her parents?

How then do YOU define it? You are trying to escape the title of "pro choice", this time by rejecting how I define it, but you have not explained WHY my definition is incorrect, nor have you provided an alternative definition. And now, a question for you: how am I "saddling" you with "limited ideas"?

Also, I do believe indeed that abortion should be illegal, no need for the quotation marks.

As to your question...it depends. The information that you have provided is too vague.

I quoted you, quotations were called for.

"Vague?"

A fifteen year-old pregnant, gets an illegal abortion with her patrent's assistance.

What should her punishment be under the law?

What should her parent's punishment be?

That's not "vague" in the least bit.

Yes, that information alone is not sufficient to determine the punishment, and therefore is too vague.

Not sufficient information?

An abortion happened...it is illegal.

Are you now taking the position that there may exist factors under which abortion WOULDN'T be illegal,and as such either not punishable by law, or punishable with a lesser degree of severity?

As is the norm with most people like you, the question is avoided. You avoid it simply because you have given the issue little thought beyond a "position" on Roe v. Wade.

You inability to answer the question proves your limited ability to debate this subject.

We are done here...take your argument elsewhere

[Earth]

Not sufficient information?

An abortion happened...it is illegal.

Time for jury nullification.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Yes i do. It is murder. No matter who the person is.