• 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!

Murderer claims 'victory' in closing of clinic

F107HyperSabr

F107HyperSabr

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
375
Location
Connecticut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Suspect claims 'victory' in closing of slain doctor's clinic - CNN.com

THE TERRORIST HAVE WON !!!!!!!!! Scott Roeder, the 'brave' church murderer of DR. Tiller has claimed 'victory' in closing of slain Doctor Tiller's clinic. "Roeder said the closure would mean "no more slicing and dicing of the unborn child in the mother's womb .."

What is even more amazing is that there are many people who "think" just the way that the murderer Scott Roeder does. Remember that there were people who actually beleived that Thimothy Veigh "did the right thing".

Extremists for the most part have no humanity or goodness in them ! Their appologists are no better it's just that they are not exactly as stupid as the extremist muderers who act out thier stupidtism.
 
He claims victory, I don't see the majority of Pro-lifers claiming this.

A good friend of mine (A Pro-Lifer) whom he and I disagree with ALMOST ALL THE TIME on abortion even said that he feels the best thing for pro-lifers to do is publicly condemn this man and seek out peaceful means to change the law.
 
"Speaking for myself ... I am reluctant to in any way legitimize Mr. Roeder, or anything he stands for, by directly responding to his statements.

"I am content to let law enforcement determine whether anything he says merits attention. I do not encourage anyone else to give Mr. Roeder or his extremist views any additional attention as he awaits trial."
 
F107HyperSabr said:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. "- Thomas Paine
Click to expand...

A most fitting sentiment when applied to someone as out of touch with reality as Roeder.
 
TheNextEra said:
He claims victory, I don't see the majority of Pro-lifers claiming this.

A good friend of mine (A Pro-Lifer) whom he and I disagree with ALMOST ALL THE TIME on abortion even said that he feels the best thing for pro-lifers to do is publicly condemn this man and seek out peaceful means to change the law.
Click to expand...
Most have been doing this.
 
Technically speaking, if one of Roeder's objectives was the closing of the clinic, then yes it is a "victory" for him. He has accomplished his mission. I see no reason for him not to make the claim.

It does not alter the nature of the criminal charges against him.
 
celticlord said:
Technically speaking, if one of Roeder's objectives was the closing of the clinic, then yes it is a "victory" for him. He has accomplished his mission. I see no reason for him not to make the claim.

It does not alter the nature of the criminal charges against him.
Click to expand...

The part of this that pisses me off is that it will inspire others, I suspect, to claim similar victories elsewhere.

And, while I'm not a big fan of abortion, I don't like seeing violence used as a means of social control. I find that dangerous to a free and democratic society.
 
Wessexman said:
Most have been doing this.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Regrettably, the wackos who get most of the publicity can give a black eye to the more reasoned folks who share a certain POV. That is true whether it's pro-life, anti-war, or any other political interest.

I believe Roeder is a classic sociopath.
 
I would like to make a point. Suppose that those in favor of abortion decided to get militant over this, and someone shoots and kills a couple of the more vocal preachers while they are preaching an anti-abortion stance from the pulpit in their church. Who do you think would be the first to call the police and demand action from the government to put a stop to it?

Just something to think about. It's called contemplating hypocrisy.
 
Jerry said:
"Speaking for myself ... I am reluctant to in any way legitimize Mr. Roeder, or anything he stands for, by directly responding to his statements.

"I am content to let law enforcement determine whether anything he says merits attention. I do not encourage anyone else to give Mr. Roeder or his extremist views any additional attention as he awaits trial."
Click to expand...

Don't you think that by being silent you are legitimizing the radicals ??!!!

It the same when the left says nothing about the extremist animal rights whackodakyls who would kill a human to maker their point about animal "rights". You like the PETA Burgers gone wild !!!!
 
Last edited:
F107HyperSabr said:
Don't you think that by being silent you are legitimizing the radicals ??!!!
Click to expand...
Not true.

You are forgetting the second half of the principle.

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
Silence presumes consent, but only when one ought to have spoken.

There is no duty to speak, particularly when, as regards the law of the matter, Roeder is still but an accused murderer.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The part of this that pisses me off is that it will inspire others, I suspect, to claim similar victories elsewhere.

And, while I'm not a big fan of abortion, I don't like seeing violence used as a means of social control. I find that dangerous to a free and democratic society.
Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of abortion when used as a birth control device but to be honest I do not believe that abortion is being used as birth control.

When the right wing whacks on radio and TV run their mouths called abortion muder and doctors murderers what can you expect when an unstable whackjob does what this freak did.
 
Birdzeye said:
Agreed. Regrettably, the wackos who get most of the publicity can give a black eye to the more reasoned folks who share a certain POV. That is true whether it's pro-life, anti-war, or any other political interest.

I believe Roeder is a classic sociopath.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I must wish some of my former allies on the "anti-Islamophobic"(for want of a better term.) had longer memories.
 
danarhea said:
I would like to make a point. Suppose that those in favor of abortion decided to get militant over this, and someone shoots and kills a couple of the more vocal preachers while they are preaching an anti-abortion stance from the pulpit in their church. Who do you think would be the first to call the police and demand action from the government to put a stop to it?

Just something to think about. It's called contemplating hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

So you think it's a fair comparison? Killing someone who says stuff you don't like vs killing someone who kills for a living?
 
talloulou said:
So you think it's a fair comparison? Killing someone who says stuff you don't like vs killing someone who kills for a living?
Click to expand...

Actually a better example would be if PETA members killed those that worked in Slaughter houses.

Would that be ok for them to do then? Afterall, the people in the slaughter house are killing animals.

It is LEGAL to kill animals as long as you are called a Slaughter House.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually a better example would be if PETA members killed those that worked in Slaughter houses.

Would that be ok for them to do then? Afterall, the people in the slaughter house are killing animals.

It is LEGAL to kill animals as long as you are called a Slaughter House.
Click to expand...

Nah, a better example would be slave owners killing slaves while slavery was legal.

Humans killing humans is more of a moral outrage then humans killing meat for food.
 
talloulou said:
Nah, a better example would be slave owners killing slaves while slavery was legal.

Humans killing humans is more of a moral outrage then humans killing meat for food.
Click to expand...

Not really. You have yet to prove that killing animals is morally right.

You say that just because something is LEGAL, doesn't make it moral or right.

So what makes killing animals moral or right?
 
TheNextEra said:
Not really. You have yet to prove that killing animals is morally right.

You say that just because something is LEGAL, doesn't make it moral or right.

So what makes killing animals moral or right?
Click to expand...

No I don't have to prove anything about animals; especially considering humans are animals.

I have asserted there is a moral outrage to one human killing another without just cause that killing other animals for meat generally doesn't equal. However, and this is off topic, you do find an even greater portion of the populace that gets pissed about killing animals solely for sport. But anywho outside of abortion there is a fairly decent consensus that one human shouldn't just kill another human without justification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom