D
Darryl1958
Guest
that is an interesting way to criticize others use of inflammatory language.:tiphat:I hope all the people on this board who, day after day, use inflammatory rhetoric to describe abortion and abortionists recognize that this man’s blood is on your hands.
In a sense, by placing the discussion of the abortion under the discussion of the commandment not to murder in the current Catholic Catechism, by the same logic, all Catholics that agree publicly with the catechism have the same blood on their hands, as the catechism itself is rather inflammatory in doing so.
Be that as it may, we can only wonder what kind of dampening effect this will have on other doctor’s who may decide that that kind of doctoring is just not worth it.
And one therefore wonders how true to word at Notre Dame Obama will be able to be, if the conscience clause he now advocates only exacerbates the resulting problem of a shortage of abortionists?
Killing abortion doctors is a form or terrorism. It is evil.
…and it works…
It changes a people’s willingness to engage in certain behavior, like Spaniards fighting in Iraq,for instance, or the western press printing cartoons about Mohammed. This may be the net effect of this kind of terrorism too.
Which brings me to my point in a rather round about way.By criminalizing and demonizing inflammatory language, which is in effect what has been happening, aren’t we in effect driving the most radical amongst us outside of the big tent, driving them away from our moderating influence into ever more radical behavior?
and if this is the case, then wouldn’t we have blood o our hands too for taking the option of free speech, however inflammatory, away from them?
Never be embarrassed about fanatics voicing our truths. This is the best of all possible worlds when they are allowed to do so.