Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 158

Thread: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

  1. #81
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If you perform even one shady very late term abortion, assault a single infant, or rape even one child, I'll applaud your death.

    That one act crosses out all the good you've ever don in your life.
    How would you define a "shady" late term abortion? What's "shady" got to do with it?
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  2. #82
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    There is a justification, it's called justifiable homicide. The bible is irrelevant. If Roeder believed Doctor Tiller was murdering babies then Roeder was perfectly justified to kill Doctor Tiller. Your explanation only works if you don't believe abortion is murder. If a pro-lifer truly believes abortion is murder then they must believe the killing of abortion doctors is justified.
    You've missed the point.

    Justifiable homicide is a doctrine created by the state. It works in conjunction with state laws. You don't get to apply the state doctrine to whatever your personal beliefs hold is wrong.

    If you follow the bible as law (and assuming that the bible calls this murder), then you are not permitted to kill this guy.

    If you follow the state as law, then you are still not permitted to kill this guy, because the doctrine of justifiable homicide only applies where the state considers something homicide.

    You're criticizing your hypothetical person for not being a hypocrite, which I think is different from the point you were trying to make.

    If someone were planning to kill my child I would put a bullet right between their eyes. Consequences be damned. The bible be damned. And the law be damned. I would defend a life with deadly force.
    Which is justifiable homicide. You're not proving anything that's not already been said.

    No it does not. You're comparing abortion, a perfectly legal procedure performed by a physician, to world hunger. The enormity of scale alone makes that comparison impossible for me to defend.
    No, they're quite comparable - you don't get to dodge that easily.

    They are both two things that are happening without any input from you. By doing nothing, you allow them to occur. Much like the hypothetical person you're talking about thinks abortion is wrong, I'm sure that you think allowing babies to starve to death is wrong. Much like you're calling that person a hypocrite for doing nothing to stop it, I'm pointing out that you could be seen as a hypocrite for doing the same.

    So, to use your own rhetoric:

    1) Is it that you don't actually care about babies starving to death overseas, and just like to pretend that you do so that other people think you're nice, or

    2) Is it that you do care, but you're too much of a coward to actually give up all the niceties in your life to ease their suffering?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    How would you define a "shady" late term abortion? What's "shady" got to do with it?
    The legality of many of Dr. Tiller's abortions are in question because he was paying another doctor to sign off on them as the second consult. He used the same doctor for most of the abortions, and the doctor received pay each time for his second opinion. Also, that opinion was not substantiated by any verifiable or documented diagnostic criteria.

    Dr Tiller was paying someone for their signature. He was not using the other doctor as a legitimate part of the process.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-31-10 at 12:43 PM.

  4. #84
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You've missed the point.

    Justifiable homicide is a doctrine created by the state. It works in conjunction with state laws. You don't get to apply the state doctrine to whatever your personal beliefs hold is wrong.

    If you follow the bible as law (and assuming that the bible calls this murder), then you are not permitted to kill this guy.

    If you follow the state as law, then you are still not permitted to kill this guy, because the doctrine of justifiable homicide only applies where the state considers something homicide.

    You're criticizing your hypothetical person for not being a hypocrite, which I think is different from the point you were trying to make.
    The people I'm talking about are not hypothetical. I can attend any pro-life rally and hear the phrase "baby killer" and "murderer" over and over again. I can see their signs with pictures on them with dead and mutilated fetuses which the pro-lifers believe are murdered babies.

    That's not a hypothetical. Those people either believe an abortion doctor is a murderer or they don't. I'm simply asking the question - which is it?

    No, they're quite comparable - you don't get to dodge that easily.
    They are in no way comparable. World hunger and abortion? No. They're not even in the same ball park. Here's why:

    I am not in any way trying to stop others from feeding hungry people. I'm not trying to legislate the actions of others regarding world hunger nor am I interested in increasing or decreasing the efforts of others regarding world hunger.

    The same cannot be said of pro-lifers. They have a vested interest in stopping abortion. I'm simply trying to clarify exactly why they don't do more to stop it? You seem to be trying to paint me with hypocrisy, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. Whether I'm a terrible person or a saint has no bearing on pro-lifers either killing or not killing abortion doctors. That is the topic at hand. Not the level of my philanthropy.


    I notice you didn't answer my question. So I will put it to anyone else. Is the phrase "baby killer" hyperbole or do pro-lifers really believe it when they say it?
    Last edited by Winnb; 01-31-10 at 12:59 PM.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  5. #85
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The legality of many of Dr. Tiller's abortions are in question because he was paying another doctor to sign off on them as the second consult. He used the same doctor for most of the abortions, and the doctor received pay each time for his second opinion. Also, that opinion was not substantiated by any verifiable or documented diagnostic criteria.

    Dr Tiller was paying someone for their signature. He was not using the other doctor as a legitimate part of the process.
    Was that illegal? Was that a violation of the AMA code of Ethics? Was that something he could lose his medical license for?
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    Was that illegal? Was that a violation of the AMA code of Ethics? Was that something he could lose his medical license for?
    It is something he could have lost his license for and have gon to prison over, yes. I believe it's a class 5 felony.

  7. #87
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    The people I'm talking about are not hypothetical. I can attend any pro-life rally and hear the phrase "baby killer" and "murderer" over and over again. I can see their signs with pictures on them with dead and mutilated fetuses which the pro-lifers believe are murdered babies.

    That's not a hypothetical. Those people either believe an abortion doctor is a murderer or they don't. I'm simply asking the question - which is it?
    Once again, you've missed the point. It's not about whether these people are hypothetical or not, it's about the fact that you're relying on faulty reasoning.

    You came up with your example, thinking that it would prove that if people believe abortionists are murderers, they should either kill abortionists or they're cowards. As I explained, that doesn't make any sense, because anyone who truly followed one or the other sets of laws would not kill said abortionist. You still refuse to acknowledge that and keep asking your question as if it has any relevance.

    They are in no way comparable. World hunger and abortion? No. They're not even in the same ball park. Here's why:

    I am not in any way trying to stop others from feeding hungry people. I'm not trying to legislate the actions of others regarding world hunger nor am I interested in increasing or decreasing the efforts of others regarding world hunger.
    You're not interested in easing world hunger? You don't think it would be a good thing to help starving babies, and would oppose legislative proposals to allocate money to help said babies? You don't raise money for anything or encourage others to donate?

    The same cannot be said of pro-lifers. They have a vested interest in stopping abortion. I'm simply trying to clarify exactly why they don't do more to stop it?
    I already explained this - because under either set of assumptions, they'd arrive at the same place the majority of them are already at.

    You seem to be trying to paint me with hypocrisy, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. Whether I'm a terrible person or a saint has no bearing on pro-lifers either killing or not killing abortion doctors. That is the topic at hand. Not the level of my philanthropy.
    I'm not trying to paint you with anything. I'm using an example to point out the flaws in your question.

    The idea that if you support something, you must go to the extremes in supporting it, is absurd.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 01-31-10 at 01:19 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #88
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The idea that if you support something, you must go to the extremes in supporting it, is absurd.
    The I simply disagree. When the "something" consists of babies being murdered how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?

    Either abortion doctors are murderers or they are not? Which is it?
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  9. #89
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    The I simply disagree. When the "something" consists of babies being murdered how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?
    And when the "something" consists of babies starving to death, how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?

    Either abortion doctors are murderers or they are not? Which is it?
    I don't think they are, but I'm sure that's not your point.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #90
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It is something he could have lost his license for and have gon to prison over, yes. I believe it's a class 5 felony.
    Ah, so he was never convicted of anything. And since Mr. Roeder took matters into his own hands and murdered Doctor Tiller we'll never know.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •