• 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'

Um, no it does not.
Salem Witch trials demonstrated quite well of what happend when we demonize for whatever reasons.
As is subjugating minors to 2nd class citizens or even sub human - slavery.
So yes, demonization and vilification of individuals advocates mistreatment and in this case, violence against.
 
I have heard people from the so-called pro-life movement call the murder a hero and others have said that it was "justified ". Do these so-called "pro-lifers" think that they are getting converts to their cause by glorifying muder ?
 
I have heard people from the so-called pro-life movement call the murder a hero and others have said that it was "justified ". Do these so-called "pro-lifers" think that they are getting converts to their cause by glorifying muder ?
For that lot of bat**** insane morons it's always been the hypocritical double standard of their way or to hell with you.
Then there is also the supporters that while they don't directly support the violent aspect of, encourage the behavior through the dehumanization of individuals who perform the act and those women who make the choice to receive the proceedure.
 
I have heard people from the so-called pro-life movement call the murder a hero and others have said that it was "justified ". Do these so-called "pro-lifers" think that they are getting converts to their cause by glorifying muder ?

1: Who, exactly, is saying this? Names and links please.

2: Who said Pro-Life is out to convert anyone over this? Maybe this isn't an appropriate time to seek converts, but simply to speak the position.

Not every Borg drone is equipped to assimilate, you know.
 
Wow, I've been missing out...

I've been a Christian for over two decades and nobody ever told me we had all this gold we could line the ceilings and walls with it.
...

The post Goshin ridiculed was probably making an obscure (read: poorly worded) reference to the early days of the Catholic church, however even then the Church was not that indiscriminate with righteous reprisal. If one was a believer, one willingly paid for tithes and indulgences and was embraced lovingly (or at least indifferently) by the Church. If a person was a nonbeliever, they might be labelled a heretic and then they could murdered and their property seized. Wasn't that in part the rationale of the Crusades?

Of course, he could have also been speaking more broadly, since the similar violent lust for money and/or power is evident in any historic "holy" war. Religion is often the guise of politics, and sometimes very poor one. Henry VIII looted monasteries and probably used the immense wealth gathered violently from that "reformation" of the Church to fund later military exploits, like the second conquest of Ireland. Many heads have worn the veil of theology, but beneath its curtain, many eyes have also gleamed with greed.

And many churches today still seem to retain their interest in power and money, even if their power mongering today is nonviolent, by means of politicking alone. Modern televangelists are a cliche for this new, domesticated version of the same historical lust, as they are always praying upon their audiences for money. (pun intended).

I suspect his concern, however inarticulate, was to emphasize, that despite the firm grip rationality has over many developed societies today, we are still the same breed of people that once willingly sanctified brutal violence with the righteous conviction. And for many others, righteous intolerance is simply the mask they wear for other purposes. And it could happen again, at any time, anywhere.
 
Last edited:
He murdered somebody who was doing his job under the law..
.
So was Reinhard Heydrich. I'm not making any assumptions about this man or saying he should have been killed but the law is not necessarily the grantor of moral rectitude and virtue.
 
Last edited:
The post Goshin ridiculed was probably making an obscure (read: poorly worded) reference to the early days of the Catholic church, however even then the Church was not that indiscriminate with righteous reprisal. If one was a believer, one willingly paid for tithes and indulgences and was embraced lovingly (or at least indifferently) by the Church. If a person was a nonbeliever, they might be labelled a heretic and then they could murdered and their property seized. Wasn't that in part the rationale of the Crusades?

Of course, he could have also been speaking more broadly, since the similar violent lust for money and/or power is evident in any historic "holy" war. Religion is often the guise of politics, and sometimes very poor one. Henry VIII's looted monasteries and probably used the immense wealth gathered violently from that "reformation" of the Church to fund later military exploits, like the second conquest of Ireland. Many heads have worn the veil of theology, but beneath its curtain, many eyes have also gleamed with greed.

And many churches today still seem to retain their interest in power and money, even if their power mongering today is nonviolent, by means of politicking alone. Modern televangelists are a cliche for this new, domesticated version of the same historical lust, as they are always praying upon their audiences for money. (pun intended).

I suspect his concern, however inarticulate, was to emphasize, that despite the firm grip rationality has over many developed societies today, we are still the same breed of people that once willingly sanctified brutal violence with the righteous conviction. And for many others, righteous intolerance is simply the mask they wear for other purposes. And it could happen again, at any time, anywhere.
It is worth remembering this religious violence seems to pale in comparison to the "Enlightened" last few centuries.
 
Silly man! Imagine being treated like a criminal while in a jail! LOL!
 
:rofl

Living proof Pro-Lifers are hypocrits!

Actually that is not necessarily true. One can support the death penalty and not abortion because they are under very different circumstances. A fetus is unlikely to have murdered. Not that I do support it but that is mainly because I don't trust the state with the power.
 
I would argue that the unborn's right to due process under the law was repeatedly violated by someone who found a technicality; much like a cold blooded murderer who get's off because the custody chain for a critical piece of evidence was accidentally broken.

I have to say, I'm not bothered by Tiller's death any more than I would be if someone offed that hypothetical murderer. Certainly there was a much better way to handle the situation, but I'm not about to come to Tiller's defense.
 
I would argue that the unborn's right to due process under the law was repeatedly violated by someone who found a technicality; much like a cold blooded murderer who get's off because the custody chain for a critical piece of evidence was accidentally broken.

So what you are saying is he is innocent, but you don't want to except it. I have looked, and seen lots of accusations, but a total of zero proof that he broke the law. You are making assumptions to make yourself feel better about your attitude.
 
So what you are saying is he is innocent, but you don't want to except it. I have looked, and seen lots of accusations, but a total of zero proof that he broke the law. You are making assumptions to make yourself feel better about your attitude.

Whether he broke the law, or was able to be prosecuted for such, is not the complete determinant of whether he was moral or we will be sad he is dead. That doesn't mean that the murderer did the right thing of course but is simply a comment on someone's feelings towards that person and their death.

When Pinochet was under house arrest in England I would not have supported his murder but I would not have mourned him if he had been murdered.

Personally I have not got enough info on Tiller to say either way. I do feel sorry for his family.
 
Whether he broke the law, or was able to be prosecuted for such, is not the complete determinant of whether he was moral or we will be sad he is dead. That doesn't mean that the murderer did the right thing of course but is simply a comment on someone's feelings towards that person and their death.

When Pinochet was under house arrest in England I would not have supported his murder but I would not have mourned him if he had been murdered.

Personally I have not got enough info on Tiller to say either way. I do feel sorry for his family.

Jerry clearly stated: "the unborn's right to due process under the law was repeatedly violated by someone who found a technicality". I was referring strictly to that. Jerry has no proof of this statement, only accusations and assumptions.
 
So what you are saying is he is innocent, but you don't want to except it. I have looked, and seen lots of accusations, but a total of zero proof that he broke the law. You are making assumptions to make yourself feel better about your attitude.

I'm sure many would say the same for that hypothetical murderer.
 
Jerry clearly stated: "the unborn's right to due process under the law was repeatedly violated by someone who found a technicality". I was referring strictly to that. Jerry has no proof of this statement, only accusations and assumptions.

I don't know enough about Tiller or Jerry's knowledge of him to pass much judgment on that. But presumably Jerry puts the rate of legitimate late-term abortions very low. Personally I agree with him, if he does hold said view, but I don't know exactly what Tiller was up to.
 
I'm sure many would say the same for that hypothetical murderer.

You are comparing yourself to Tiller's murderer? If not, I am confused, if so, why would you want to make that comparison?
 
Any chance of you explaining?

Sure thing.

It appears that Tiller was a sly criminal. He got away with it because he knew how to manipulate the system and he found a couple loop holes.

What the epic of Tiller tells Pro-Life is that it's not enough to allow late term abortion simple with a second doctor's opinion. The rules need to be much stricter, and Tiller has helped Pro-Life refine future legislation.
 
So what you are saying is he is innocent, but you don't want to except it. I have looked, and seen lots of accusations, but a total of zero proof that he broke the law. You are making assumptions to make yourself feel better about your attitude.
One does not have to break the law to deny someone else due process of law. One merely has to bend it sufficiently.
 
Sure thing.

It appears that Tiller was a sly criminal. He got away with it because he knew how to manipulate the system and he found a couple loop holes.

What the epic of Tiller tells Pro-Life is that it's not enough to allow late term abortion simple with a second doctor's opinion. The rules need to be much stricter, and Tiller has helped Pro-Life refine future legislation.

So what you are saying is that Tiller was innocent. Thank you. See, there is this thing here in the US called laws. If you can't get a conviction on some one, they are, surprise, not guilty, and therefore not a criminal.
 
So what you are saying is that Tiller was innocent. Thank you. See, there is this thing here in the US called laws. If you can't get a conviction on some one, they are, surprise, not guilty, and therefore not a criminal.

As innocent as murderers who get off on a technicalities, yes.
 
Last edited:
It is truly fascinating to watch people wail and gnash their teeth thinking I would not make the same remark in public.

Its funny that folks were talking about where and when they censor themselves, because I was thinking the same thing. I am a very intelligent man with a quick wit and a broad education, and I have censored myself too. I have allowed people to use this false baby murderer rhetoric, in public discourse, in a room I am in, but no longer.

After what happened Sunday May 31st, I will not tolerate it in a room I am in.

I am going to take that intelligence, and I am going to verbally crucify anyone mouthing ANYTHING about putting pro-life into law, in such a vicious and personal way that if they are not driven from the field of discussion, they will be driven from the room in tears. I am done tolerating anyone saying this in my presence, as it is an advocation of denying me my religious liberty. If you want to be pro-life , you can be, for yourself and yours, but if you mention voting it, then that is taking away my right to decide for myself, and you can prepare to reap the browbeating whirlwind from a well educated genius.
 
Last edited:
So what you are saying is that Tiller was innocent. Thank you. See, there is this thing here in the US called laws. If you can't get a conviction on some one, they are, surprise, not guilty, and therefore not a criminal.
From all that I have read, the most generous thing that can said about Tiller was that he was not convicted, while the most probable thing that can be said was that he was about to be.

However, none can say Tiller was innocent. The standard of the law is presumption of innocence until a guilty verdict is rendered. There is a wide gulf between that and asserting a man is innocent.

Hell, I stopped claiming to be innocent myself ages ago. (for some reason, no one ever believes me).
 
Its funny that folks were talking about where and when they censor themselves, because I was thinking the same thing. I am a very intelligent man with a quick wit and a broad education, and I have censored myself too. I have allowed people to use this false baby murderer rhetoric, in public discourse, in a room I am in, but no longer.

After what happened Sunday May 31st, I will not tolerate it in a room I am in.

I am going to take that intelligence, and I am going to verbally crucify anyone mouthing ANYTHING about putting pro-life into law, in such a vicious and personal way that if they are not driven from the field of discussion, they will be driven from the room in tears. I am done tolerating anyone saying this in my presence, as it is an advocation of denying me my religious liberty. If you want to be pro-life , you can be, for yourself and yours, but if you mention voting it, then that is taking away my right to decide for myself, and you can prepare to reap the browbeating whirlwind from a well educated genius.
Why am I suddenly inspired to launch a petition drive to outlaw all abortions anywhere as murdering unborn children?
 
Back
Top Bottom