• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man accused of killing abortion doc says he's being 'treated like a criminal'

Goshin, your personal story is a valid and respectable one, however...

Goshin said:
I had no intention of having children anytime soon when I found out my wife was pregnant
Click to expand...

Do you suppose every woman that puts a child up for adoption "intended" to get pregnant in the first place? Do you suppose every woman that chooses to have an abortion "intended" to get pregnant in the first place?

There must be choices for those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Forcing women to carry an unwanted child to term is unconscionable. Expecting women to properly raise and care for an unwanted child is ludicrous. Condemning the LEGAL choices of others who find themselves in the same situation you did is hypocritical.
 
Goshin said:
In addition to not being able to come up with $40,000 in legal fees and other costs, there is another reason I haven't tried to adopt: Single Parent Adoption -
Click to expand...

That's a cop out. If you REALLY wanted to adopt a child, you'd find a way.

Here's a question - do you support gay adoptions?
 
Glinda said:
Goshin, your personal story is a valid and respectable one, however...
Click to expand...

Thank you. May I take that as a retraction of the charge of hypocracy?



Do you suppose every woman that puts a child up for adoption "intended" to get pregnant in the first place? Do you suppose every woman that chooses to have an abortion "intended" to get pregnant in the first place?
Click to expand...

Of course not, and that is my point. Instead of avoiding my responsibility by talking my then-wife into an abortion, I accepted it and did what I had to do. I had a responsibility and I fulfilled it. I did this despite being poor and in debt and without a spouse to help me past the second year. Child support? Hah, yeah she buys him some clothes once in a while.

So how is my story so different from that of a woman alone with an unwanted pregnancy? I didn't have to endure 9 months of sharing my body, this is true...instead I am sharing my life, my income, my home and everything else for at least 18 years (probably longer).

I think I have earned the right, by these sacrifices, to be a little critical of those who choose abortion instead of life.

There must be choices for those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Forcing women to carry an unwanted child to term is unconscionable. Expecting women to properly raise and care for an unwanted child is ludicrous. Condemning the LEGAL choices of others who find themselves in the same situation you did is hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Ah, we're back to charges of hypocracy again. I expected my SELF to raise and care for a child who was originally unexpected and "unwanted". I think that calling for others to do the same is not hypocracy at all. It might be a tad too optimistic, but not hypocritical.

G.
 
Glinda said:
That's a cop out. If you REALLY wanted to adopt a child, you'd find a way.

Here's a question - do you support gay adoptions?
Click to expand...

I'll admit that adopting hasn't been a priority up to now. I already have a child, for one thing, and supporting him properly by myself is sufficiently taxing in time and money at the moment.

The notion of adopting is something I have only thought about in the past year. I am frankly unsure that I have any intrest in re-marrying, yet I'd like to have more children. My first inquiries into adopting as a single father were discouraging, regarding both the money involved and the still-remaining bias against single men adopting.

To come up with 40 grand I'd have to go into debt. Debts must be repaid. This would cut into my ability to support the child I adopted for at least a decade after my assumption of that debt. This is worth considering as it bears on the child's well-being. If adoption in this country were easier and cheaper it might have a salutary effect on adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Despite all this, I may still try to adopt, when my son is older and closer to being self-sufficient. I have enough time left to raise another kid, or set of kids, before I'm too old to cope with it I think.

Regarding gay adoption, I haven't made up my mind on that one yet. There was a thread on the subject where I very honestly said that the idea made me uneasy, and I wondered if there had been sufficient study done on certain relevant implications. My opinion is not set in stone on the matter; I am open to being persuaded one way or the other. At present I'd have to say I have no solid opinion on it.


G.
 
Goshin said:
Of course not, and that is my point. Instead of avoiding my responsibility by talking my then-wife into an abortion, I accepted it and did what I had to do. I had a responsibility and I fulfilled it. I did this despite being poor and in debt and without a spouse to help me past the second year.

So how is my story so different from that of a woman alone with an unwanted pregnancy?
Click to expand...

Not everyone in the world has the wherewithal to do what you did in the same situation, nor the education, resources, dedication, determination, etc. While your actions in this case are to be lauded, expecting all others to "rise to the occasion" as you did is an irrational and foolish expectation.

Who suffers when such expectations are not met? The child does. Every time.

Is it not better to give a woman the right to choose NOT to bring an unwanted child into the world that others don't have the money (or the desire, or the resources, etc.) to adopt? Is dumping even more unwanted children into the desperately broken foster-care program (which, in far too many cases, produces desperately broken humans) a good thing?

I think I have earned the right, by these sacrifices, to be a little critical of those who choose abortion instead of life.
Click to expand...

You can be critical. But when/if you vote/work to deny others the choices you also had with an unwanted pregnancy, your actions become hypocritical.

Re: gay adoption... IMO, if you would outlaw abortions, you cannot, in all good consciousness, deny gay adoptions.
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
Is it not better to give a woman the right to choose NOT to bring an unwanted child into the world that others don't have the money (or the desire, or the resources, etc.) to adopt? Is dumping even more unwanted children into the desperately broken foster-care program (which, in far too many cases, produces desperately broken humans) a good thing?
Click to expand...

You know, you can be on either side of the issue and still understand how gruesome the road this kind of thinking may lead you down.

Why should this choice end at birth, if this is the justification for it?
 
Glinda said:
Not everyone in the world has the wherewithal to do what you did in the same situation, nor the education, resources, dedication, determination, etc. While your actions in this case are to be lauded, expecting all others to "rise to the occasion" as you did is an irrational and foolish expectation.
Click to expand...

Thank you. However, I don't think I had much in the way of resources that most people don't have, other than perhaps the simple determination that I would do whatever was necessary to fulfill my responsibility to an innocent life that my actions created.

Who suffers when such expectations are not met? The child does. Every time
Click to expand...
.

Yes, it is so. In my beliefs, the not-yet-born are human too, and their suffering the loss of life from abortion is significant also.


Is it not better to give a woman the right to choose NOT to bring an unwanted child into the world that others don't have the money (or the desire, or the resources, etc.) to adopt? Is dumping even more unwanted children into the desperately broken foster-care program (which, in far too many cases, produces desperately broken humans) a good thing?
Click to expand...

I agree that the foster care system, on the whole, is appalling. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If adoption were made far easier and cheaper it would help fix that problem. I simply can't agree that killing babies is part of the solution.

Glinda, I used to be wishy-washy on the subject of abortion. Then I saw my son, in the womb, on an ultrasound. That changed me forever. I cannot emphasize enough the impact this had on me. I could never view the unborn as merely unwanted tissue ever again. He had a face, hands, feet, a beating heart... and I speak from my heart, that it grieves me greatly that we kill over a million such babies every year.


You can be critical. But when/if you vote/work to deny others the choices you also had with an unwanted pregnancy, your actions become hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Glinda, hypocracy lies in professing something one doesn't believe, or advocating something that one does not practice. I think I've already explained that I faced this choice, and what I did: I walked my talk. You can disagree with me, but I think calling me a hypocrit is incorrect.

G.
 
Last edited:
Mercer said:
May you have 15,000 unwanted pregnancies in your next life...and have all the men who raped you leave you stranded to live in poverty.

Of course he was a moral man. He was following the law and providing a service to the women who sought him out.

In YOUR mind he's immoral. But then, not ALL believe in your war-mongering God, either.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you posted what you did.

My comments spell out quite clearly that I don't approve of this guy's murder just because he may not have been a moral man. Morality doesn't come into play with death for me. As I said, there are many people that are not moral by others' standards, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be killed.

I am pro-choice in the sense that I think women should be able to choose whether they want an abortion or not, but I am pro-life personally. I would never ask or coerce a women that I got pregnant into having an abortion and would always try to talk her out of it if it were up to me.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not sure why you posted what you did.

.
Click to expand...

The gentleman (or lady) in question, appears to jump to conclusions with an alacrity that would incite envy amongst kangaroos and Olympic track and field medalists.
:lol:
 
danarhea said:
Well, duhhhh. Ya' think?

I think that pretty much explains why he is being treated like a criminal.

Article is here.
Click to expand...


If you are pro-life or anti-abortion on the grounds that "fetuses" are human beings or babies then these abortionist should be seen as nothing more than legal sadistic genocidal mass murdering serial killers then men like Scott Roeder should be seen as heroes by those claiming to be anti-abortion/pro-life. I applaud Roeder for his efforts.Not everyone is willing to face life in prison or the death penalty for something the believe in.



It sickens me that people who claim to be pro-life/anti-abortion are jumping the abortionist band wagon that Roeder is a nutjob. Did any of the anti-slavery people in the 1800's condemn the underground rail road members and runaway slaves and suggest that they should suffer the full penalty of the law and bitch how its not right to take the law into your own hands? Did any of the black rights groups in the 1900's condemn those who refused to sit on the back of the bus and suggest that they should suffer the full penalty of the law. Are those who claim to be anti-abortion trying to toss abortionist scum salad by jumping on the Roeder is an extremist nutjob bandwagon so that way they do not seem as crazy to the abortionist? I got news for every one who claims to be pro-life/anti-abortion, abortionist scum already think we are crazy because of the fact we believe "fetuses" are babies/human beings deserving of life just any other innocent person. They don't think Roeder is a nut because he took the law into his own hands, they think he is a nut because he killed someone over something they equate to toes, pancreases and other expendable parts of the body. They see what he did equal to ELF or peta killing people over some animals or trees. Every pro-lifer/ anti-abortionist should not jump on that band wagon, only futher legitimizes the abortionist view that "fetuses" are nothing more than expendable organs.
 
Did any of the anti-slavery people in the 1800's condemn the underground rail road members and runaway slaves and suggest that they should suffer the full penalty of the law and bitch how its not right to take the law into your own hands? Did any of the black rights groups in the 1900's condemn those who refused to sit on the back of the bus and suggest that they should suffer the full penalty of the law.
Click to expand...

Careful James. When you go start to comparing something to the black experience, like the pro-gay marriage people occassionally do, the hard-righter's will come at you with claws out. But you might get a pass. I dunno. :lol:
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If you are pro-life or anti-abortion on the grounds that "fetuses" are human beings or babies then these abortionist should be seen as nothing more than legal sadistic genocidal mass murdering serial killers then men like Scott Roeder should be seen as heroes by those claiming to be anti-abortion/pro-life. I applaud Roeder for his efforts.Not everyone is willing to face life in prison or the death penalty for something the believe in.
Click to expand...

May Roeder burn in hell with all his supporters.
 
Goshin said:
Glinda, I used to be wishy-washy on the subject of abortion. Then I saw my son, in the womb, on an ultrasound. That changed me forever. I cannot emphasize enough the impact this had on me. I could never view the unborn as merely unwanted tissue ever again. He had a face, hands, feet, a beating heart... and I speak from my heart, that it grieves me greatly that we kill over a million such babies every year.
Click to expand...

I fully understand your feelings here (and I share them, believe it or not), but the sad truth is many, MANY women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy do not feel the way you do. They do not "connect" (for want of a better word) with the fetus they are carrying, and will not "connect" with the child they would have to carry to term, should the option for abortion be outlawed.

Of course, the real answer is to get people to be more responsible to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen, but this is simply wishful thinking. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, and as a result, unwanted children.

Given this (and it IS a given), we can either outlaw abortion and dump ever more unwanted children into the horrific foster-care program, or we can reduce the number of unwanted children dumped into the horrific foster-care program by giving women the option to abort an unwanted pregnancy. The reality is, an unwanted, abandoned child destined to a miserable "upbringing" as a foster child is a tragedy, a travesty, and completely avoidable.

Glinda, hypocracy lies in professing something one doesn't believe, or advocating something that one does not practice. I think I've already explained that I faced this choice, and what I did: I walked my talk. You can disagree with me, but I think calling me a hypocrit is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Have you/would you vote to outlaw abortions?
 
TheNextEra said:
May Roeder burn in hell with all his supporters.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. May he burn in eternity right alongside of that abortion doctor he dispatched to an early grave. Good riddence to bad rubbish.

Throw on the coals!! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
There will always be unwanted pregnancies, and as a result, unwanted children.

Given this (and it IS a given), we can either outlaw abortion
Click to expand...

Or you could just choose not to do it , and leave other people's right to decide for themselves alone.

I read the rest of your post, and I am sorry you misunderstood your parental drive as a categorical imperitive. That specialness you felt toward your son, is his alone, and you sully it if you try to illogically extend it to any and every possible human. Take care of your own, and leave other people to make thier own decisions. Respect your own religious liberty, enough to grant the same to your fellow citizen.
 
Captain America said:
I agree 100%. May he burn in eternity right alongside of that abortion doctor he dispatched to an early grave. Good riddence to bad rubbish.

Throw on the coals!! :lol:
Click to expand...

This makes me sad. I thought better of you, Cap.
 
TheNextEra said:
May Roeder burn in hell with all his supporters.
Click to expand...

May all the abortionist rot in hell and hopefully satan shoves a pitch fork up their asses.
 
Glinda said:
I fully understand your feelings here (and I share them, believe it or not), but the sad truth is many, MANY women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy do not feel the way you do. They do not "connect" (for want of a better word) with the fetus they are carrying, and will not "connect" with the child they would have to carry to term, should the option for abortion be outlawed.
Click to expand...

I do not argue that some women never connect with their unborn, ditto some fathers; I think it is very sad that it is so. Do you not think that a majority would feel differently when they actually saw their living baby after giving birth?

If we made adoption cheap and easy, do you think that might help these problems? I do.


Of course, the real answer is to get people to be more responsible to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen, ...
Click to expand...

This I agree with.

but this is simply wishful thinking. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, and as a result, unwanted children.

Given this (and it IS a given), we can either outlaw abortion and dump ever more unwanted children into the horrific foster-care program, or we can reduce the number of unwanted children dumped into the horrific foster-care program by giving women the option to abort an unwanted pregnancy. The reality is, an unwanted, abandoned child destined to a miserable "upbringing" as a foster child is a tragedy, a travesty, and completely avoidable.
Click to expand...

Those are some ugly choices, yes. Killing unborn babies is an ugly thing also. I don't think there is a "perfect answer" that will fix everything, but I don't think abortion is the answer either, any more than I think infanticide is.


Have you/would you vote to outlaw abortions?
Click to expand...

I presume you are prepared to call me a hypocrit again if I say yes. Despite the fact that hypocracy, in this scenario, would be telling others to do something I haven't...and as I explained, I've walked my talk.

If I were given the authority to define abortion legality in the USA, I would not ban it utterly, but would restrict it severely. You'd have to go to a family court and convince a judge or jury that there was good and compelling reason to end the life of an unborn baby. This would give an unborn baby the right to not be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law." The criteria would be strict. Abortions would be few. It would leave open the possibility of abortions where the mother's health was truly endangered, or other compelling circumstances applied, but abortion-as-birth-control would not be permitted. I would also choose, if I had the authority, to make adoption much easier and cheaper and more appealing to all concerned.

Not a perfect solution, but that's my preferred outcome to a situation with no perfect answers.

G.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
Or you could just choose not to do it , and leave other people's right to decide for themselves alone.

I read the rest of your post, and I am sorry you misunderstood your parental drive as a categorical imperitive. That specialness you felt toward your son, is his alone, and you sully it if you try to illogically extend it to any and every possible human. Take care of your own, and leave other people to make thier own decisions. Respect your own religious liberty, enough to grant the same to your fellow citizen.
Click to expand...


I'm a bit confused, were you replying to Glinda or to me?
 
jamesrage said:
May all the abortionist rot in hell and hopefully satan shoves a pitch fork up their asses.
Click to expand...

I'll give ya thanks on this one, however, I would also include the terrorists that kill them or blow their clinics to smithereens. May the devil stick a pitch fork up their crappers too. :lol: Neither are better than the other IMO.
 
Goshin said:
I do not argue that some women never connect with their unborn, ditto some fathers; I think it is very sad that it is so. Do you not think that a majority would feel differently when they actually saw their living baby after giving birth?
Click to expand...

For some, it's entirely possible. A majority? No. And what happens when those who didn't want or plan for a baby are denied the choice to abort, and once the child is born still don't connect? What then?

If we made adoption cheap and easy, do you think that might help these problems? I do.
Click to expand...

Possibly. However, we already have a completely unmanageable number of children in foster care, hoping for adoption and being left wanting. I cannot see how adding millions more unwanted children to the adoption roles every year could possibly be eclipsed by easier adoption laws.

Those are some ugly choices, yes. Killing unborn babies is an ugly thing also. I don't think there is a "perfect answer" that will fix everything, but I don't think abortion is the answer either, any more than I think infanticide is.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I'm pro choice. There must be options for those who do not share these sensibilities.

If I were given the authority to define abortion legality in the USA, I would not ban it utterly, but would restrict it severely. You'd have to go to a family court and convince a judge or jury that there was good and compelling reason to end the life of an unborn baby. This would give an unborn baby the right to not be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law." The criteria would be strict. Abortions would be few. It would leave open the possibility of abortions where the mother's health was truly endangered, or other compelling circumstances applied, but abortion-as-birth-control would not be permitted. I would also choose, if I had the authority, to make adoption much easier and cheaper and more appealing to all concerned.

Not a perfect solution, but that's my preferred outcome to a situation with no perfect answers.
Click to expand...

I suggest that, should your plan be put into effect, back-alley abortions would kill far more fetuses AND mothers than you'd be comfortable with.
 
Goshin said:
I'm a single parent. Abortion was potentially an option when I found out she was pregnant; I chose life. I've spent the past 13 years parenting a child with dyslexia, 11 of them by myself. I think maybe I have some standing to speak.

I've love to adopt a child or two. In America, the legal costs are all but prohibitive unless you're quite well-heeled.

My life is quite busy with lots of important things, thank you. Keep your snide superiority to yourself please.

G.
Click to expand...
So what, the law gives you the right to choose, Ive spent the last 58yrs with dyslexia, mine!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom