Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Common Ground With Theorists of Murder? Part II

From today's Los Angeles Times comes a story about the reduced possibility for "common ground" on abortion following the murder of Dr. Tiller.

"Doctor's slaying a setback for common ground on abortion"

"The Obama administration had begun bringing both sides together for discussions. Now emotions are raw, and any agreement looks less likely than ever."

We repeat what we said in our post of November 22, 2008:

"There is no common ground possible with a person who believes it is acceptable behavior to murder another person, until they renounce that position. The position itself precludes common ground, because it is a denial of common humanity. That's what being 'pro-choice' on abortion means--it's a denial of common humanity."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

By the "until they renounce" standard, it seems that some members of the "pro-life" community want it both ways. Unfortunately, abortion is not merely a fact of life, it is still a legally protected practice. Inconveniently, murdering an adult in their place of worship is not legally protected. This, and other "pro-life" websites refuse to directly and explicitly renounce violence in all it's forms, including the murder of a doctor who performs abortions. This not only stalls any fruitful dialogue that might eventually end abortion, it makes some anti-abortion activists no better than the pro-abortion activists they constantly attack. Wake up to the flawed, sinful humanity we all share!

Gibbons in SF said...

Anonymous:

Every single sentence in your comment is incorrect:

1) “By the ‘until they renounce’ standard, it seems that some members of the ‘pro-life’ community want it both ways.”

I can’t have any common ground with people who think it’s acceptable to murder another person and I don’t think abortionists should accept that there is any common ground with people who think it’s acceptable to murder them.

2) “Unfortunately, abortion is not merely a fact of life, it is still a legally protected practice.”

So what? So were the holocaust and slavery, to give just two examples. The question is not one of legality, but of justice.

3) “Inconveniently, murdering an adult in their place of worship is not legally protected.”

Who, besides you, says that is “inconvenient”?

4) “This, and other "pro-life" websites refuse to directly and explicitly renounce violence in all it's forms, including the murder of a doctor who performs abortions.”

Go here: http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/2009/05/we-are-in-mourning.html

5) “This not only stalls any fruitful dialogue that might eventually end abortion, it makes some anti-abortion activists no better than the pro-abortion activists they constantly attack”.

Who are “some”? Names, please.