The face of the “PRO-LIFE” movement. Killing humans to save the cell.


Ah, the irony. A ProLifer kills someone and has no regrets. It’s a bitter irony, but nonetheless.

It seems so odd to me, that a grown man, wrapped in an outdated ideology is willing and proud to go to prison over protecting a gaggle of cells in return for killing a man who had a family, provided a legal service and was just doing his job. AND, the very fact that this guy stalked his victim at CHURCH. Going, waiting, missing him, going again, waiting and killing him in the foyer of a CHURCH. Where is the justification here? This is GOD’s MISSION?? Really?

Please if there are any Pro Lifers who can justify this, I would love to hear it.


About Janis Alanis

Thinker, BS detector, champion of Reason. Unafraid. Ticked off, and riled up. View all posts by Janis Alanis

2 responses to “The face of the “PRO-LIFE” movement. Killing humans to save the cell.

  • Melynda

    I think that the crux of the anti abortion argument, and the disconnect with the pro choice argument, is that any pregnancy at any stage is a child, a fully formed human. That’s why they say “it’s a child, not a choice” and that’s why Scott Roeder argued (and tried to get his charges reduced) by arguing that he was protecting babies. But that is not the case. A baby is not a baby until it is born and is biologically independent of its mother at whatever stage of pregnancy.

    We must, as a culture, stand up and say that women cannot be conscripted by the state into pregnancy and delivery just as men are not conscripted into war. We must, as a culture, stand up and say that a woman’s body, like a man’s body, is inviolate to forced harm by the state. And believe me, I’ve looked at the numbers: it’s safer for a woman to go to war than it is for her to give birth. Death and injury during pregnancy and childbirth occur at a much higher rate than death and injury while serving in the armed forces in a war zone. Pregnancy is the most biologically dangerous thing a woman can do and not one woman should be forced into continuing that state if she feels unable or unwilling to handle it and the consequences.

    Anti choice advocates like Scott Roeder do not see pregnancy and birth as a dangerous biological process or consider women’s bodies to be inviolate: they believe that women are sinful, lustful maniacs that must be controlled/punished (with children!!!!) for their sins.

    All that said (it’s my 3 cents), let me say I’m relieved that there are still people of good sense in my home state and that the jury returned a just verdict quickly.

    • Janis Alanis

      Wow. And might I add, thank you. That is the most cogent response I have ever witnessed. 3 cents? That is worth a million dollars. Thank you Melynda, for saying it better than I could ever imagine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: