• 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!

Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

jamesrage said:
Your refusal to answer a simple question only proves your hypocrisy. This is why I think most you abortionist nothing but hypocrites or some of the people who are anti-abortion that condemn Roeder as cowards. Had Tiller's victims been gays,anti-war/anti-military protesters and other people you leftist give a crap about you wouldn't be calling Scott Roeder a terrorist or a murderer or some nut job,most likely you would be applauding him for his deed and perhaps even calling him a hero. So please do not pretend that you are some how righteous or that you would never in a million years would be glad that someone took the law into their own hands.
Click to expand...

the reason tiller did those abortion, wether you argue them as murder or not, was because the life of the mother and/or the baby was in danger if the birth went ahead, and unless those gays,anti-war/anti-military protesters were actually, without a doubt going to do irreperable damage and possibly cause death to someone, your arguement is flawed.

and do you think the mothers wouldn't have thought long and hard about an abortion, that they would have already formed an attachment to the baby, or did they just do it for kicks?
 
spud_meister said:
the reason tiller did those abortion, wether you argue them as murder or not, was because the life of the mother and/or the baby was in danger if the birth went ahead, and unless those gays,anti-war/anti-military protesters were actually, without a doubt going to do irreperable damage and possibly cause death to someone, your arguement is flawed.

and do you think the mothers wouldn't have thought long and hard about an abortion, that they would have already formed an attachment to the baby, or did they just do it for kicks?
Click to expand...

You don't have to go and justify the abortion. What Tiller was doing was not illegal.
 
spud_meister said:
the reason tiller did those abortion, wether you argue them as murder or not, was because the life of the mother and/or the baby was in danger if the birth went ahead [...]
Click to expand...
Debatable. At the time of his death, Tiller was being investigated for allegedly colluding with another doctor who apparently would certify that the mother's life was in danger, whether that was actually the case or not.
 
Coronado said:
Debatable. At the time of his death, Tiller was being investigated for allegedly colluding with another doctor who apparently would certify that the mother's life was in danger, whether that was actually the case or not.
Click to expand...

i was under the impression that he was cleared of that
 
spud_meister said:
i was under the impression that he was cleared of that
Click to expand...
Not according to what I read a while back. I think he may have been investigated for that on more than one occasion though. I can't remember right now, and I'm too tired to look it up.
 
jamesrage said:
What if anti-war/anti-military protests,homosexuality and abortion were illegal and it was legal to kill people for doing those things? Would you be saying "
what ____ did was legal". you seem to forget that." or would you be hoping that someone would take out that serial killer and applaud who ever took out that serial killer?
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical is idiotic and illogical james. See, if it were LEGAL to kill people for doing the things that you mentioned, those people who killed them would NOT be serial killers. They would be following the law. So your definitions are incorrect... not surprisingly since we all know when you get worked up like this, you cannot put together a reasonable argument.

See, what Dr. Tiller did was LEGAL; therefore he is NOT a serial killer by definition. If it was LEGAL to kill someone for protesting the war, the killer would be doing something LEGAL and therefore would not be a serial killer.

Try another hypothetical that is actually logical and makes sense and perhaps someone will respond. The one you gave is neither.
 
Coronado said:
Not according to what I read a while back. I think he may have been investigated for that on more than one occasion though. I can't remember right now, and I'm too tired to look it up.
Click to expand...

he was cleared in one case, and another was still pending, i think
 
I love the amount of partisan hackery that something like this can stir up.

You have liberals screaming out "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" about this that wouldn't use the word to describe the fort hord shooting.

Meanwhile you have conservatives excusing vigilantism, bucking the rule of law, and suggesting its a GOOD thing that someone broke the law to do something. Mind you, the same conservatives...one of which is one of the most outspoken people on the server about this issue...who will go on, and on, and on about how we must crack down on illegal immigration because we are a nation of LAWS and if we excuse our laws being broken or ignore our laws being broken then that weakens our nation. I guess we must excuse MURDERERS that break the law but we must condemn with all righteous fury illegal aliens that break the law. :roll:

He's not a terrorist, he's a murderer. Like the Fort Hood shooting there was no clear political message being sent (Him being politically motivated, which is debatable still, isn't enough). There was no indiscriminate killing aiming at a large body count. There was no ties to a terrorist organization. This was a murder, the man is a murderer, but he's not a terrorist.

The man is absolutely wrong for doing it as well. If you find what Tiller is doing is disgusting, work to try and make it illegal. KILLING him is not justified, and should not be justified. This country does not function off vigilante law. If you say that someone should get off for manslaughter for this then someone should be able to get off on manslaughter for killing anyone THEY feel is doing something morally reprehensable. The man should get the book thrown at him in what is a pretty simple and clear cut case. He premeditatedly killed this doctor...he needs to either be locked away for life or fry.
 
Coronado said:
Debatable. At the time of his death, Tiller was being investigated for allegedly colluding with another doctor who apparently would certify that the mother's life was in danger, whether that was actually the case or not.
Click to expand...

Oh, in that case...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your hypothetical is idiotic and illogical james. See, if it were LEGAL to kill people for doing the things that you mentioned, those people who killed them would NOT be serial killers.

They would be following the law. So your definitions are incorrect.
See, what Dr. Tiller did was LEGAL; therefore he is NOT a serial killer by definition.
Click to expand...


A serial killer is a killer whose victims usually have something in common, for example occupation, race, appearance, sex, or age group. So my definition is correct about Tiller the baby serial killer. I believe that you have serial killer confused with mass murderer. A mass murderer is someone who murders a large amount of people over a short period of time, the key word here being murder which has everything to do with legality.


If it was LEGAL to kill someone for protesting the war, the killer would be doing something LEGAL and therefore would not be a serial killer.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if those things were legal tand Tiller did those things hen you would not condemn Scott Roeder for killing him?Please be a man and have the balls and integrity to answer the question.

"What if anti-war/anti-military protests,homosexuality and abortion were illegal and it was legal to kill people for doing those things? Would you be saying "what ____ did was legal". you seem to forget that." or would you be hoping that someone would take out that serial killer and applaud who ever took out that serial killer?"
 
misterman said:
Massive strawman.
Click to expand...

So you are going to be a coward and refuse to answer the question. SO in other words you would condemn one vigilante and praise another.
 
Zyphlin said:
I love the amount of partisan hackery that something like this can stir up.

You have liberals screaming out "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" about this that wouldn't use the word to describe the fort hord shooting.
Click to expand...

You got a point but to be fair, there are some anti-abortionist cowards who are scared of what abortionist think of them using the terrorist label on Scott Roeder too, if not this thread then the last thread of where Tiller's killing first became news.

Meanwhile you have conservatives excusing vigilantism, bucking the rule of law, and suggesting its a GOOD thing that someone broke the law to do something.
Click to expand...

If you are actually anti-abortion how is this in any shape or form not a good thing? Tiller being dead means that he will not be able to kill any more babies.

Mind you, the same conservatives...one of which is one of the most outspoken people on the server about this issue...who will go on, and on, and on about how we must crack down on illegal immigration because we are a nation of LAWS and if we excuse our laws being broken or ignore our laws being broken then that weakens our nation.
Click to expand...

I look at illegal immigration as an act of invasion. I find the killing of innocent children and babies to be worse than an invasion any day of the week and would applaud any vigilante who took the law into their hands to remove such scum.


The man is absolutely wrong for doing it as well. If you find what Tiller is doing is disgusting, work to try and make it illegal.
Click to expand...

So our founding forefathers were wrong for revolting against the British, abolitionist were wrong for freeing slaves, civil rights activist(the real ones in the 50s and 60s, not the gay marriage activist and the illegal immigration activist) were wrong for sit ins and sitting on the front of the bus and the civil war was wrong? They should have just waited until what they wanted was made legal(or illegal in the case of slavery and racial discrimination)


KILLING him is not justified, and should not be justified.
Click to expand...

Any man who purposely kills children deserves something worse than death.
 
jamesrage said:
Sure lets label everything a terrorist act.Bank robber robs a bank= terrorist act, someone killed a in drive by= terrorist act,Store clerk shot in convenient store= terrorist act. Amazing how you libs will sit there and say no that is not a terrorist act when some Muslim does some **** but someone kills a scumbag and you call him a terrorist.
Click to expand...

You'll have to show with proof where I have done such a thing. As usual, you can't. Sorry the facts that you support terrorism doesn't appease you.
 
TheNextEra said:
You'll have to show with proof where I have done such a thing. As usual, you can't. Sorry the facts that you support terrorism doesn't appease you.
Click to expand...


Hmmm....Did James say "the Next Era"? I don't think he did....


j-mac
 
jamesrage said:
So our founding forefathers were wrong for revolting against the British,
Click to expand...

Nope, but they were committing treason and if caught they should've suffered the full punishment for their action if I was british to keep hold the rule of law.

And I dare say the Founders didn't feel they should do their less peaceful revolts without consequences. They knew the consequences and accepted it.

abolitionist were wrong for freeing slaves
Click to expand...

Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.

Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.civil rights activist(the real ones in the 50s and 60s, not the gay marriage activist and the illegal immigration activist) were wrong for sit ins and sitting on the front of the bus and the civil war was wrong?[/quote]

"translation: The ones that I grudgingly have to agree with because its already happened, not the ones I can openly disagree with"

Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.

They should have just waited until what they wanted was made legal(or illegal in the case of slavery and racial discrimination)

Nope, as I said...

They should go about every LEGAL way of fighting against the injustice.

IF they wish to go about it illegally, so be it. They can do that. But to uphold the integrity of the rule of law in this country the consequences must be metted against them if they're found guilty of breaking the law.

But thanks James, its good to see that if you have a dislike for those blasted old mexicans then sure, the rule of law is needed. But dislike someone doing something legal and screw it, **** the rule of law, who gives a **** about that.

Truely principled of you.

Jamesrage view on the law apparently. Break the law and I like why you're doing it, more power to you you should get off scott free. Break the law and I think you're scum, WE MUST PROTECT THIS COUNTRIES LAWS!

:roll:
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Did James say "the Next Era"? I don't think he did....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Well considering he said "You libs" and I am a liberal, yes, he did include me. Reading comprehension, try it sometime, you might like it.
 
jamesrage said:
So you are going to be a coward and refuse to answer the question. SO in other words you would condemn one vigilante and praise another.
Click to expand...

Why should I when you answer for me? It's called a straw man. It's a form of cowardice.
 
misterman said:
Why should I when you answer for me?
Click to expand...

I asked the question more than once and you refused. Obviously since you refused to answer then the choice you picked would contradict the whole"but what Tiller was doing is legal".



It's called a straw man. It's a form of cowardice
Click to expand...
The cowardice is on your part, you only demonstrate that you lack consistency and courage by refusing to answer. Either your view would stay the same regardless of who or how old Tiller's victims are or it does matter who Tiller's victims are and therefore the legality of what Tiller was doing wouldn't play into it when someone took his life.


"What if anti-war/anti-military protests,homosexuality and abortion were illegal and it was legal to kill people for doing those things? Would you be saying "what ____ did was legal". you seem to forget that." or would you be hoping that someone would take out that serial killer and applaud who ever took out that serial killer?"
 
Zyphlin said:
Nope, but they were committing treason and if caught they should've suffered the full punishment for their action if I was british to keep hold the rule of law.


And I dare say the Founders didn't feel they should do their less peaceful revolts without consequences. They knew the consequences and accepted it.



Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.

Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.civil rights activist(the real ones in the 50s and 60s, not the gay marriage activist and the illegal immigration activist) were wrong for sit ins and sitting on the front of the bus and the civil war was wrong?
Click to expand...

"translation: The ones that I grudgingly have to agree with because its already happened, not the ones I can openly disagree with"

Nope, but to keep the soverignty of the rule of law they needed to be held accountable to the full extent of the law if they were caught.

They should have just waited until what they wanted was made legal(or illegal in the case of slavery and racial discrimination)

Nope, as I said...

They should go about every LEGAL way of fighting against the injustice.

IF they wish to go about it illegally, so be it. They can do that. But to uphold the integrity of the rule of law in this country the consequences must be metted against them if they're found guilty of breaking the law.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask whether or not they were ready to accept the consequences of their actions.The whole founding forfathers,abolutionist other things were a response your "The man is absolutely wrong for doing it as well. If you find what Tiller is doing is disgusting, work to try and make it illegal." Obviously you think lawless is acceptable if the individuals are doing something you agree with too.


But thanks James, its good to see that if you have a dislike for those blasted old mexicans then sure, the rule of law is needed. But dislike someone doing something legal and screw it, **** the rule of law, who gives a **** about that.

Truely principled of you.
Click to expand...


I do not have a dislike of Mexicans.


Jamesrage view on the law apparently. Break the law and I like why you're doing it, more power to you you should get off scott free. Break the law and I think you're scum, WE MUST PROTECT THIS COUNTRIES LAWS!
Click to expand...


Yeah our founding forefathers,civil rights activist, abolitionist all must be hypocrites.
 
jamesrage said:
"What if anti-war/anti-military protests,homosexuality and abortion were illegal and it was legal to kill people for doing those things? Would you be saying "what ____ did was legal". you seem to forget that." or would you be hoping that someone would take out that serial killer and applaud who ever took out that serial killer?"
Click to expand...

That's the question? Okay. I'd say it would be okay to kill someone who killed other people (any people, not just the groups you chose) even though it was legal. The difference is that nobody disagrees that those people are people, because they've been born.
 
jamesrage said:
Sure lets label everything a terrorist act.Bank robber robs a bank= terrorist act, someone killed a in drive by= terrorist act,Store clerk shot in convenient store= terrorist act. Amazing how you libs will sit there and say no that is not a terrorist act when some Muslim does some **** but someone kills a scumbag and you call him a terrorist.
Click to expand...
No concrete evidence that he purposely killed born babies at his clinic after they'd been delivered. This was just a rumor that had been started and was repeated by O'Reilly before the guy got shot. So I don't buy it. There's rumors about millions of things out there, such as that Shepard Smith is gay and that Cheney had political opponents assassinated, and I don't trust any of it.
 
jamesrage said:
A serial killer is a killer whose victims usually have something in common, for example occupation, race, appearance, sex, or age group. So my definition is correct about Tiller the baby serial killer. I believe that you have serial killer confused with mass murderer. A mass murderer is someone who murders a large amount of people over a short period of time, the key word here being murder which has everything to do with legality.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what you are saying has nothing to do with legality. If this is the case, then again, your hypothetical makes no sense. You said "if it was legal to do those things". Therefore, you are bringing legality into it. You can't have it both ways, james.

And I reject your definition of "serial killer". A serial killer is one who murders at least three people.

A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than thirty days, with a "cooling off" period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.

Serial killer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Murder is a legal term... serial killers are murderers. What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Your usage of the term "serial killer" to describe him is inaccurate and used only for dramatic effect.



Are you saying that if those things were legal tand Tiller did those things hen you would not condemn Scott Roeder for killing him?Please be a man and have the balls and integrity to answer the question.

"What if anti-war/anti-military protests,homosexuality and abortion were illegal and it was legal to kill people for doing those things? Would you be saying "what ____ did was legal". you seem to forget that." or would you be hoping that someone would take out that serial killer and applaud who ever took out that serial killer?"
Click to expand...

James... your hypothetical makes NO SENSE. If it was legal to kill people for anti-military protests, someone who killed the person who did that would be a criminal. What Tiller did was legal. What Roeder did was not. I condemn Roeder. He murdered. Tiller did not. It would be the same in your ridiculous analogy. The law enforcement agent who killed anti-war protesters was doing something legal. The person that killed HIM was not... he was a criminal. I would condemn the criminal.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Well considering he said "You libs" and I am a liberal, yes, he did include me. Reading comprehension, try it sometime, you might like it.
Click to expand...


Oh I comprehend just fine mr snark. What I see is you pulling a tactic that is tired and old. james used "Libs" as a generalization. You know what that is don't you? If it applies, then take it to heart, if not don't worry about it. See, it is the larger point of his that you try and derail with your childishness here. Instead of speaking to the characterization, you choose the ultimately failing tactic of making it personal. That looses every time.

So, my suggestion is that when you take your next Semester's choices home to talk over with mommy, you should go back and take a little speech, and debate to refresh what you think you know.
:2wave:


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom