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

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
You are not getting it.

The value is zero until its a baby.

I get it just fine, thankyouverymuch. You are the one failing to recognize the development of that fetus and how morally consequential the developed ability to suffer is to our dispensation of human rights. Your entire argument at this point is whether it is on one side or the other of the birth canal. That's just stupid and lacking any form of compassion or depth of analysis.

Wow, now we don't care how inaccurate our terminology is as long as it will be inflammatory eh ?

My terminology is perfectly accurate. You are advocating the murder of a baby when you advocate unfettered abortion past 22 weeks.

You are talking about what you consider a baby.

Yes, I like staying grounded in reality. :shrug:

I not only don't have to agree with you, I don't even need to consider your rigamarole of comparison. I am at liberty to make my own decision in the matter, and I say it's a baby once its born.

Yes. You say, you say, you say. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than what you say. I am not interested in your opining about how to disregard the rights of babies because it might be inconvenient for the woman. You can say until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the law does not agree with you because the majority of the country aren't base, depraved baby killing barbarians.

None of your science arguments gain any traction here,

I wouldn't imagine science would gain any traction with someone deluded enough to convince his own conscience that killing a baby is acceptable...

as my personal decision on the point at which to start valuing that Human is mine alone, and I do not have to base it off of your parallels or your opinions.

I seem to recall hearing the same argument spouted off about other human beings prior to January 1, 1863...

I am not doing any somersaults, I just disagree with you about something unprovable.

It has been proven. The structural components are all there. But you have already stated that it is irrelevant as your whole argument hinges on your personal opinion to devalue a human life, most abhorrently using your own hypothetical baby as an example of your lack of empathy for your own offspring. Your argument lacks any form of logic or foundation in Constitutional support. You hinge it on one word, with emphasis on that word speciously placed by you and your proud chest thumping about how you don't have to value a baby if it is on the wrong side of the tracks.

You feel awfully powerful being able to thrust your will onto that little baby, huh?

Citizens are born. Womb contents are not citizens.

That has not been fully decided. What has, however, been decided, is that "womb contents" past a certain stage of development are granted a right to live provided the baby's existence is not threatening the life or health of the mother. Murdering the baby...err...womb contents :roll: is punishable under the law.

Sorry pal, the Constitution states that persons born are citizens.

Sorry pal, that emphasis is yours and not the constitution's. It is simply stating that those naturalized here have the same rights as those born here. It in no way speaks to the topic of abortion.

Society's business is much better handled by staying the hell out of family decisions and squabbles.

Except where your family decisions and squabbles result in a stronger family member stripping other family members of their basic human rights. That is society' business and will ever remain that way as long as we consider ourselves an civilized society of equality. You're just gonna have to learn to deal with that, chuckles.

Heres the big point that I have not even gotten out yet.

Is it more "I say, I say, I say" because if it is, you can keep it back.

Consider this jallman:

Society is having its town hall meeting. You decry abortion. I stand up and ask if the Town Hall will fall down if we ignore abortions. Since it won't, why don't we just ignore tham, rather than try to get violence on a large portion of our already existant citizens ?

For the same reason we did not ignore the holocaust. For the same reason we did not ignore slavery. For the same reason we do not ignore exploitation of children or the AIDS crisis in Africa or the genocides in Darfur. Citizenship is not what grants human rights. Being a human is what grants human rights. Hell, if a guy wants to kill his neighbor and that's it, will the Town Hall fall down if we ignore it? Since it won't, why don't we just ignore him rather than try to bring him to justice (which does not imply doing violence against him despite your attempt to throw that red herring in)? :roll:

I simply reject your interference in the reproductive cycle of other citizens as rude and unwarranted. Attack already existant citizens over a potential citizen ?

Your reproductive rights are yours until they begin inflicting harm on another sentient, sapient human being without provocation. And again, citizenship is not the issue at stake here. Human rights is the issue. And no one is advocating attacking anyone (except those advocating the free practice of dismembering babies in utero). I am proposing placing legal implications for doing so. Oh wait...nevermind, that's already been done for the most part.

Are you Nuts ?

I think that is a much more appropriate and poignant question when directed at the one who has no issue with the dismemberment of babies just because they are on the wrong side of the tracks...

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
That is not the only difference, and we have been over the fact already.

Funny you say that yet it remains your standby argument in the face of any opposition to your barbaric advocations.

It is not obfuscation. It is me, destroying your fallacious appeal to universality.

No. Not at all.

You want the "cache" of the word life, without paying attention to the totality of that word's meaning. I eat life everyday.

Oh, oh, oh...I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about human rights here and not some hippy notion of all life being the same. When you wanna rejoin us in the discussion about your advocacy of dismembering babies in utero, let us know. Until then, we're gonna move right along talking about the issue of human abortion. kthanxbi.

Got any proof ? Did he do this after his shift as an abortion provider ?

It is an accepted fact that he performed late term abortions. Obtuse is not an attractive color on you.

Very, very false. You think it is what you think it is.

Very very true. It is what it is. And what it is is the advocacy of killing babies in utero...a very barbaric and inhumane practice deserving of the stiffest criminal penalties for its performance.

Do you think I would allow this ? you are being duplicitous if you think that gets you out of anything. I will defend my wife's liberty, and we are right back to you using force on me, and my wife.

Well then you have an entirely different set of criminal issues to deal with including resisting arrest, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, etc. And yes, force would then be used as it would be in any criminal offense. I have no problem with that.

If you are rational enough to now to use the term "late term abortion" perhaps you are rational enough to realize that all are performed with cause.

If you are so certain that all are done with cause, then you should have no issue providing me with statistics that prove such a thing.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

B L Zeebub said:
if the next poster had not exposed your unforced error would you have changed your post.

If it is doesnt that go to your credibility

No it doesn't. It means she made a mistake and her credibility is only bolstered by the fact that she was willing to correct her mistake when it was brought to her attention. If she continued to deny it, then there would be a credibility issue. Right now, we have a "humans make mistakes" issue and even it has been resolved.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
I get it just fine, thankyouverymuch.

No you didn't. I have no need to "devalue" something that already has a value of zero.

jallman said:
You are the one failing to recognize the development of that fetus and how morally consequential the developed ability to suffer is to our dispensation of human rights.

You mean like the suffering you would inflict on me and my wife to subdue me (that will require lethal force) and to abduct her against here will ?

If human rights matter, respect those of my wife and I.

jallman said:
Your entire argument at this point is whether it is on one side or the other of the birth canal.

Voidwar said:
That is not the only difference, and we have been over the fact already.

jallman said:
That's just stupid and lacking any form of compassion or depth of analysis.

Simply false. My compassion is used on my wife.

jallman said:
My terminology is perfectly accurate. You are advocating the murder of a baby when you advocate unfettered abortion past 22 weeks.

Terminology fudging again. It ain't a baby, its a fetus. If you want to treat a fetus as such, I won't stop you. Now how bout you showing that same courtesy to other citizens. If they decide differently on this very personal question, respect thier right to.

jallman said:
Yes, I like staying grounded in reality. :shrug:

Your Opinion does not define reality.

jallman said:
Yes. You say, you say, you say. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than what you say.

And so is yours. Any textbook science that you dig out to support you, it says in the same textbook that it is a fetus, not a baby. Why should I look at your selective science quotes, and ignore that science calls it a fetus ?

jallman said:
I am not interested in your opining about how to disregard the rights of babies because it might be inconvenient for the woman. You can say until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the law does not agree with you because the majority of the country aren't base, depraved baby killing barbarians.

Smearing and appeal to emotion in addition to terminology fudging.

This is disappointing jallman.

jallman said:
I wouldn't imagine science would gain any traction with someone deluded enough to convince his own conscience that killing a baby is acceptable...

Terminology fudging, and more attempts to apply science books to a personal and unprovable question.

jallman said:
I seem to recall hearing the same argument spouted off about other human beings prior to January 1, 1863...

OH puh leeeze.

jallman said:
It has been proven. The structural components are all there.

You mean like the amnoitic fluid in the lungs or the umbilical cord and placenta ?

jallman said:
But you have already stated that it is irrelevant as your whole argument hinges on your personal opinion to devalue

I have already explained to you why "devalue" is inapplicable.

jallman said:
Your argument lacks any form of logic or foundation in Constitutional support.

Simply false, as the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly shows.

jallman said:
You feel awfully powerful being able to thrust your will onto that little baby, huh?

How powerful do you feel when thrusting your morals onto other citizens ?

jallman said:
That has not been fully decided.

Constitution has spoken, and is the supremem Law of the Land.

jallman said:
Sorry pal, that emphasis is yours and not the constitution's. It is simply stating that those naturalized here have the same rights as those born here. It in no way speaks to the topic of abortion.

It doesn't need to. It's relevance to this discussion is who is and who isn't a citizen.

jallman said:
Except where your family decisions and squabbles result in a stronger family member stripping other family members of their basic human rights.

False. If a parent grounds their kid, kid's liberty is violated. Society has no dog in this race. Staying the hell out of the area between parents and offspring is my point. I would defund the entire CPS apparatus if I could.

jallman said:
For the same reason we did not ignore the holocaust. For the same reason we did not ignore slavery.

Those happened to born persons, and thus are very different kettles of fish.

jallman said:
Your reproductive rights are yours until they begin inflicting harm on another sentient, sapient human being

Not what we are talking about. It aint a human being.

jallman said:
And no one is advocating attacking anyone

Just because the thugs you send to abduct my wife wear badges, doesn't mean they aren't attacking me. If someone hires men to attack me, and I successfully defend myself, it behooves me to execute thier boss before he hires another crew, does it not ?

jallman said:
I think that is a much more appropriate and poignant question when directed at the one who has no issue with the dismemberment of babies just because they are on the wrong side of the tracks...

More terminology fudging in an attempt to appeal to emotion.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
If you are so certain that all are done with cause, then you should have no issue providing me with statistics that prove such a thing.

Provide statistics that prove they weren't. I will stick with the fact that Tiller was a doctor and you are not. His judgment = cause.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

By the way jallman, thanks for taking the time and having the courtesy to discuss the issue in a mostly civil fashion.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
Terminology fudging, and more attempts to apply science books to a personal and unprovable question.

Well, that pretty much states it all right there. You openly confess that this is not an issue that you intend to approach rationally, stating that science has no bearing on your rabid opining about how it is acceptable to dismember babies in utero.

I think I fully understand the caliber of intellect I am dealing with here. you have abandoned all honest discourse in favor of tossing out catch phrases like "appeal to emotion" in an attempt to obfuscate the true nature of what you are advocating. You may believe what you like however I am fully in agreement with the law where your kind are concerned: partial birth abortions undertaken without medical justification are treated as crimes. The only place where I deviate from the law on that issue is that I think the punishment should be much stiffer than it already is, up to and including the death penalty if premeditation is proven.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
By the way jallman, thanks for taking the time and having the courtesy to discuss the issue in a mostly civil fashion.

Thank you, also, but I do think that we have come to an impasse on this issue.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
Provide statistics that prove they weren't. I will stick with the fact that Tiller was a doctor and you are not. His judgment = cause.

Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. You made the claim they were done with cause. Now the onus is on you to back that claim up.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
Well, that pretty much states it all right there. You openly confess that this is not an issue that you intend to approach rationally, stating that science has no bearing on your rabid opining about how it is acceptable to dismember babies in utero

If it is "in utero" then it is, factually not a baby.

I think your approach is irrational, and I will demonstrate why.

Your line is arbitrary. Human gestation and development is quite variable.

Some 21 weekers, are at the same stage as some 23 weekers.

So your line is an arbitrary one, and not really "rational" at all.

Birth is not arbitrary but a fact.

jallman said:
I think I fully understand the caliber of intellect I am dealing with here. you have abandoned all honest discourse in favor of tossing out catch phrases like "appeal to emotion" in an attempt to obfuscate the true nature of what you are advocating.

It is not a catch phrase any more than your consistant use of inapplicable inflammatory terminology.

jallman said:
You may believe what you like however I am fully in agreement with the law where your kind are concerned: partial birth abortions undertaken without medical justification are treated as crimes.

Dr. Tiller's judgement is sufficient medical justification under Kansas law.
An attempt to force him to document it was vetoed. Thus his judgement, without documentation is sufficient under Kansas Law.

jallman said:
The only place where I deviate from the law on that issue is that I think the punishment should be much stiffer than it already is, up to and including the death penalty if premeditation is proven.

As I stated earlier, the best you are getting here is trading one murder for another. Of course, the citizen you saved is worth much less than the one you destroyed, because the rest of society had already invested a minimum of 12 or so years in any citizen capable of concieving. So, Society is out twelve years of investment, and no better off.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. You made the claim they were done with cause. Now the onus is on you to back that claim up.

Aye, the fact that he proceeded with the procedure is proof that there was cause in his judgement. A law attempting to require more, was vetoed.

Smoke[MaxX] · Jun 8, 2009

talloulou said:
How is not giving a hoot that Tiller was gunned down support for his killer?

Thanks for addressing all of my points with an insignificant question. I did not say that anybody supported the killer. I said that they could justify the killing. Or do you disagree? If this was anyone else, would you feel the same way- uncaring whether or not they lived or died?

Also, did you really think that was the most significant part of my post? Or are you just going to ignore the more difficult questions?

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

talloulou said:
Well forgive me for not having the same faith in women and drs. There are corrupt drs.

Talloulou said:
have given you a dr. who was hired by the state to review Tiller's records. He has declared repeatedly on record that Tiller was not following current Kansas law and that he saw charts where there was no satisfactory proof that the late term abortion met the irreversible health threat criteria. If your claim is that he's a liar then fine. Where's the dr. who reviewed the charts and found them to be in order??????

So how is it you distrust one doctor, but not another, seemingly based simply on whether you like what the particular doctor hsa to say?

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
So how is it you distrust one doctor, but not another, seemingly based simply on whether you like what the particular doctor hsa to say?

Why...that's not what she said at all.

Now she can correct me if I am wrong, but I think her issue is with the intentional lack of transparency Tiller Baby-killer had. Normally if people are going out of their way to hide something...

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

talloulou said:
The Tiller murder was like a breath of fresh air.

This is what has so many of us so upset. Tiller was not a convicted criminal. There are huge, gaping holes in any case against Tiller. The best document you can come up with against him is the argument of a doctor who has protested Tiller previously, and who you believe unquestionably, despite your stated distrust of doctors. And yet you are happy that a guy is dead.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
This is what has so many of us so upset. Tiller was not a convicted criminal. There are huge, gaping holes in any case against Tiller. The best document you can come up with against him is the argument of a doctor who has protested Tiller previously, and who you believe unquestionably, despite your stated distrust of doctors. And yet you are happy that a guy is dead.

I'm not happy a guy is dead but I am happy a sadist won't be ripping the heads off babies anymore.

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
Why...that's not what she said at all.

Now she can correct me if I am wrong, but I think her issue is with the intentional lack of transparency Tiller Baby-killer had. Normally if people are going out of their way to hide something...

She said she did not trust doctors, that doctors can be corrupt. She said that the evidence against Tiller is based largely on the word of a single doctor. You cannot see an issue with those two statements from one person?

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
She said she did not trust doctors, that doctors can be corrupt. She said that the evidence against Tiller is based largely on the word of a single doctor. You cannot see an issue with those two statements from one person?

No, I don't see an issue with those two statements. In fact, I am much in agreement with them. I trust two opposing doctors checking against each other much more than I trust a single doctor or a pair of doctors in collusion with one another.

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
No, I don't see an issue with those two statements. In fact, I am much in agreement with them. I trust two opposing doctors checking against each other much more than I trust a single doctor or a pair of doctors in collusion with one another.

But why is the word of one more believable than the word of another? Both had an interest in this, on opposite sides.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
But why is the word of one more believable than the word of another? Both had an interest in this, on opposite sides.

I don't think one is more believable than the other. I think that the two have a vested interest in vindicating their own ideals so if left in an adversarial dynamic, the truth would be closer than allowing one or the other to dictate, unchallenged, what truth is.

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
I don't think one is more believable than the other. I think that the two have a vested interest in vindicating their own ideals so if left in an adversarial dynamic, the truth would be closer than allowing one or the other to dictate, unchallenged, what truth is.

OK, but here is the thing. The case against Tiller is largely based on the unproven words of that one doctor, who previously protested against Tiller. If he is to be suspect, and Talloulou states accurately that there are corrupt doctors so he should be, the case against Tiller becomes very weak.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
OK, but here is the thing. The case against Tiller is largely based on the unproven words of that one doctor, who previously protested against Tiller. If he is to be suspect, and Talloulou states accurately that there are corrupt doctors so he should be, the case against Tiller becomes very weak.

Well the case against Tiller is intentionally kept in a weakened state because any attempt at oversight of Tiller's murder mill was intentionally blocked by a governor who was receiving sizable contributions from Tiller. That alone is enough to raise an eyebrow again.

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
Well the case against Tiller is intentionally kept in a weakened state because any attempt at oversight of Tiller's murder mill was intentionally blocked by a governor who was receiving sizable contributions from Tiller. That alone is enough to raise an eyebrow again.

That is still an assumption on your part. It's amazing how much of the case against the man is third hand, based on sources biased against the guy, and assumption.

jallman · Jun 8, 2009

Redress said:
That is still an assumption on your part. It's amazing how much of the case against the man is third hand, based on sources biased against the guy, and assumption.

The same can be said of any defense of Tiller, too.

Redress · Jun 8, 2009

jallman said:
The same can be said of any defense of Tiller, too.

To an extent, yes. But, Tiller is the accused, the burden of proof is on the accusers.

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

jallman

jallman

jallman

Voidwar

Voidwar

Voidwar

jallman

jallman

jallman

Voidwar

Voidwar

Smoke[MaxX]

Active member

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

jallman

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!