Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Okay. I'll play.
/snip
|
Literally all of this is wrong, but it's a massive threadjack so I'll just respond to the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd read enough about Roeder. In his words, if he's found guilty, he was acting in self-defense of the unborn, not under the idea of striking fear into the hearts of abortion providers and women everywhere. Iirc, there have been four murders tied to abortion in the last sixteen years. Four. I'm sorry, but that doesn't constitute terrorism. Sure, there are loonies out there but they are much rarer than many people would have one believe. Much rarer. And much, much, much rarer than they were twenty years ago.
|
You can't act in self-defense of another individual or potential individual. You can only act in self-defense of yourself. His cowardly, ignorant attack was intended to be a strike at existing, legal abortions everywhere. His intent was to stop all abortions, so he murdered a prominent women's health professional in cold blood in order to make the larger change of stopping all abortions. It's the very definition of terrorism.
Your point about it's rarity meaning that it's not terrorism is also flawed. How often do people fly planes into buildings? It's only happened once, therefore it's not terrorism? I think it may be time for you to reconsider your definition of terrorism.
As this was an act of terrorism and it was successful in closing Tiller's clinic, the terrorist has won. It's unacceptable that acts such as these are successful; it's unacceptable that terrorism works. The best way to combat terrorism is to now allow it to change us. Just as the proper response to 9/11 would have been continuing to have a free and fair society, to continue in everything we were doing on 9/10, the proper response to the act of terrorism against Dr. Tiller would be keeping this clinic for women in need open.