• 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'

Redress said:
This is kinda the point. If there is a problem with the law, change it. I have no problem with that, though don't expect my support in actually changing it in this case. The problem is that, while attempting to change the law, those who are acting within the law are being the victim of what can only be described as terrorism. The further problem is the attitude that some one who is acting within the law, doing what he feels is right, is some kind of monster and his murder is somehow deserved.
Click to expand...


Yes I would say that people that harrass, vandalize, intimidate and threaten and murderer people who are conducting their lives and business within the rules of law should be called terrorists.
If these acts are being committed and reported to the feds and nothing is done then why create the laws against the things in the first place?
Aren't there laws against harrassing and intimidating and threatening abortion providers? Aren't they there to be a deterant to give people who are pondering committing the ulimate act of murder a second thought? When these laws are violated over and over again and reported and nothing is done, isn't that kind if sending the message that the ultimate act of murdering a abortion doctor will also be condoned?
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
When did I say he was guilty?

Please try and avoid these leaps and non-sequiturs.
Click to expand...

Weren't you claiming he was doing abortions that were late term without the woman being in danger?

If not what are your complaints about Tiller than besides he did abortions?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, just like the law is wrong for Gay Marriage being illegal, but you and many others still say it is the right thing to be against gay marriage. But regardless gay marriage is illegal, that doesn't mean I am going to kill people that are against gay marriage.

And those people could not prove this doctor did not do that.

Again, why does that mean this doctor deserved to be killed?

No matter what you say, a law being wrong in the U.S. does not give the right for people to kill over it.
Click to expand...

What is the existing Civil Union compromise equivalent to abortion?
 
Jerry said:
What is the existing Civil Union compromise equivalent to abortion?
Click to expand...

Red herrring. Also, should be no compromise for gay marriage. It should be 100 % legal and encouraged. But that is off topic.
 
Redress said:
Red herrring. Also, should be no compromise for gay marriage. It should be 100 % legal and encouraged. But that is off topic.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point: references to gay-marriage are Red Herrings.
 
I like Schmaltz Herrings, Buckling Herrings are good as well
 
TheNextEra said:
Weren't you claiming he was doing abortions that were late term without the woman being in danger?
Click to expand...
I said it looked like he may have been doing this according to a BBC article that was clearly biased in favour of him. I made no comment on its legality.
 
jamesrage said:
Captian are you anti-abortion on the belief that abortion is nothing more than the legal killing human babies in the womb?
Click to expand...

James, I believe my pro-life stance is well noted by everyone here. Although you never see me get into heated debates on a topic such as abortion, that has been cussed, discussed, and whipped like a dead horse on forums as long as I can remember.

I am pro-life and I walk the walk. My wife and I stood responsible for our human creations and we are damned glad we did. But neither do I think it is my place to cram my personal beliefs down the throats of others.

Neither will you find me endorsing terrorists like the one that killed the baby-killer-doctor, in that church. I am just saying that, in my eyes, the baby killing doctor and the terrorist doctor killer are both scumbags and the world is a better place without them both.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Well he did murder someone so it would reason to say that he's being treated like a criminal. I don't feel sorry for Tiller at all. But it doesn't mean you can go around murdering people you disagree with. Change the law. Don't shoot people.
 
Captain America said:
I am just saying that, in my eyes, the baby killing doctor and the terrorist doctor killer are both scumbags and the world is a better place without them both.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Here is an ostensibly good guy, but you refere to a doctor as a scumbag because he doesn't share your religion. Is a Hindu priest/ Brahmin a scumbag too ?
 
Voidwar said:
Here is an ostensibly good guy, but you refere to a doctor as a scumbag because he doesn't share your religion. Is a Hindu priest/ Brahmin a scumbag too ?
Click to expand...
Depends....is the Hindu priest murdering babies?
 
Voidwar said:
Here is an ostensibly good guy, but you refere to a doctor as a scumbag because he doesn't share your religion. Is a Hindu priest/ Brahmin a scumbag too ?
Click to expand...

My religion? :rofl

And what religion might that be?

No sir. I can understand your mistake though. A lot of people automatically assume that someone who stands on the side of life MUST be some sort of Jesus freak. :roll:

And a LOT of Jesus freaks claim to have the monopoly on getting to determine what is right and what is wrong. Which is just as halarious. :rofl

My views are my own and they are not attached to any religion.

And, most likely, there are scumbags to be found in Hindu's priests as well. i really don't know. Just going with the law of averages. Can't say I ever met a Hindu Priest.
 
celticlord said:
Depends....is the Hindu priest murdering babies?
Click to expand...

I have the right to my religious freedom.

My religion doesn't hold that to be a baby.

You lose.

My freedom of religion is just as important as yours, and moreso when it is my bloodline at question.
 
Captain America said:
My religion? :rofl

And what religion might that be?
Click to expand...

It makes no difference which, yours and his are different, because he doesn't consider a fetus a baby, and you do.

Captain America said:
My views are my own and they are not attached to any religion.
Click to expand...

But other Americans don't get to have views because yours are so accurate ?

It isn't about your religion, it is about respecting others right to decide theirs.
 
Voidwar said:
I have the right to my religious freedom.

My religion doesn't hold that to be a baby.

You lose.

My freedom of religion is just as important as yours, and moreso when it is my bloodline at question.
Click to expand...

Your right to your religion (or any right for that matter) ends where someone else's rights begin. A 22 week gestated fetus has a right to life that supercedes your right to religion.

I, religiously, feel that retards and assholes should be fed to alligators. All the same, Champs lives and some alligators go hungry.
 
jallman said:
Your right to your religion (or any right for that matter) ends where someone else's rights begin.
Click to expand...

My religion says there is no "someone else" there.

Its my call, since it is my bloodline.
 
Voidwar said:
My religion says there is no "someone else" there.

Its my call, since it is my bloodline.
Click to expand...

It's not your call when you allowed the pregnancy to develop to a point that there is now a sapient human who can know suffering when you crush its skull and dismember it in utero. It is the Constitution's call and the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of that individual.
 
jallman said:
It's not your call when you allowed the pregnancy to develop to a point
Click to expand...

Says you. My Call the whole damn time.

jallman said:
It is the Constitution's call
Click to expand...

The Constitution leaves the call up to me until delivery.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Click to expand...
 
Voidwar said:
Says you. My Call the whole damn time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you take that attitude right on into an ethical abortion clinic and see how it flies, chuckles.


The Constitution leaves the call up to me until delivery.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the Section, Clause, or amendment that states that...
 
jallman said:
Yeah, you take that attitude right on into an ethical abortion clinic
Click to expand...

Whose ethics ? Yours ? Captain America because his views are so accurate ?
 
Voidwar said:
Reread the post and look for the word born then.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that. Now show me the article, clause, or amendment that gives you the right to kill a viable fetus (basically a baby by that point) any time you like. Can you do that?
 
Voidwar said:
Whose ethics ? Yours ? Captain America because his views are so accurate ?
Click to expand...

Ethics are generally a social compass. Morals are personal ones. When it comes to defending life, ethics are the enforcement, not morals.
 
jallman said:
Yeah, I got that. Now show me the article, clause, or amendment that gives you the right to kill a viable fetus (basically a baby by that point) any time you like. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

I do not agree with you about the part in parentheses.

And I do not have to, and it is not a provable question.

Some religions contend that "ensoulment" doesn't happen till 40 days after birth.

The Constitution says it is a citizen once it is born. Thus that is when it starts having "rights" under the supreme Law of the Land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom