A resistance with a truly appropriate sense of urgency is not necessarily one that includes resorting to violence directed against abortionists, as you seem to imply. Resorting to such violence, while a case may be made for its morality, is so clearly a bad strategy when applied to the realities of the situation that it is effectively rendered immoral.

I wonder if you get much of an opportunity to discuss moral issues with intellectually astute Catholics. You have interesting and impassioned ideas, but they seem to be completely untroubled by the doctrines of our faith.

No matter, our discussion of moral theology will have to wait for another time. I would like to consider the question of ‘human nature’ with you while we consider your refreshingly original argument that those of us who assert that the developing fetus’s right to life is equal to that of our own must be kidding ourselves because our response to the slaughter of innocents is as placid as it is. You argue that if we really thought an eight week old fetus was as valuable as a toddler we would do nothing all day but inflict violence on abortionists and their clients.

The fact is that it is the rare person who takes it upon himself to rectify immoral acts that ought to be controlled by the society. Such people are called terrorists. As you point out, there have been anti-abortion terrorists and virtually everyone in the Pro-Life movement has distanced himself or herself from such people. The problem with terrorists isn’t that they’re mistaken about the things that upset them. The problem with terrorists is they think that they, as individuals, are called to take on the responsibility of an entire society.

There are sane Pro-Lifers and there are crazy Pro-Lifers. You seem to be saying that only the crazy ones are sincere. I disagree

Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

I don’t think I want the Court, you, or anyone else defining who is a human being or when they become one?

And how about if a murderer kills a pregnant women, doesn’t soceity charge the murderer with a double homicide?

Assigning non-personhood to a little human being in the womb because some in soceity do not assign value (human-beingness) to the baby in the womb doesn’t sound like a soceity where our right to life is secured.

The point is that you cannot say for certain that the (human)fetus (a nice dehumanizing word to lessen the impact of killing babies and thus justifying it)is not a person.

Is a one hour, one day or one month or one year old child (sorry, post-natal life) “human being” enough to escape the savagery of the abortionist and your justification of their reasoning that this human life is not “human being” enough?

Your argument that the baby is a “human life” but not a “human being” is a much more dangerous idea to concede to the “pro-choicer” then refusing to infer that since human beings beget human beings therefore the baby in the womb must be a human being also.

Do not be so worried about gaining the approval of the abortion-right fanatics, what are they our judges?

Just because no one is bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists doesn’t mean I do not think it is MURDER.

The Nazis murdered millions of Jews and I didnt hear of any Germans bombing the death camps, does that prove that the Jews may have been human lives but not necessarily human beings, so what’s the harm?

I argue with the pro-choicers by telling them that when a women gets pregnant that baby in the womb is their son or their daughter. Really what this maniacal issue is about is a mother’s right to kill their own child, it has nothing to do with a women’s choice.

As soon as you get pregnant you are a mother.