• 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'

B L Zeebub said:
Why???.......
Click to expand...
If mere legality is the threshold for determining ethical conduct, the rule of law quickly degenerates into mobocracy.

Regardless of what the law is today, it is incumbent upon everyone to bring their perception of moral conduct to any discussion touching on what the law should be tomorrow.

If abortion be not murder, the reason for rejecting that description should rely on a moral force beyond the law. If abortion be murder, the reason for attaching that description should rely on a moral force beyond the law. Reducing what is in essence a moral debate to perfunctory statements on the condition of the law today deprives the debate of its essential moral aspect.

Whether abortion is or is not murder hinges in part on whether it is or is not wrong, legality be damned.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
If mere legality is the threshold for determining ethical conduct, the rule of law quickly degenerates into mobocracy.

Regardless of what the law is today, it is incumbent upon everyone to bring their perception of moral conduct to any discussion touching on what the law should be tomorrow.

If abortion be not murder, the reason for rejecting that description should rely on a moral force beyond the law. If abortion be murder, the reason for attaching that description should rely on a moral force beyond the law. Reducing what is in essence a moral debate to perfunctory statements on the condition of the law today deprives the debate of its essential moral aspect.

Whether abortion is or is not murder hinges in part on whether it is or is not wrong, legality be damned.
Click to expand...
I asked "why" it is a "dangerous" statement, I see no danger in your ramblings
 
Redress said:
So, never admitted it, never convicted. Sounds to me like he was not provably a murderer, and you are just making an unfounded accusation. It's never good to let your emotions overrule your sense.
Click to expand...

So are we coming now full circle to what was discussed at the front of this thread?

Jerry said:
What did he do wrong?
Click to expand...

celticlord said:
He got caught.
Click to expand...

Roeder is a criminal because he got caught. Tiller is not a criminal because he did not get caught.
 
B L Zeebub said:
I asked "why" it is a "dangerous" statement, I see no danger in your ramblings
Click to expand...
celticlord said:
If mere legality is the threshold for determining ethical conduct, the rule of law quickly degenerates into mobocracy.
Click to expand...
That is the danger.

I prefer my anarchy a wee bit more orderly than that.
 
celticlord said:
So are we coming now full circle to what was discussed at the front of this thread?





Roeder is a criminal because he got caught. Tiller is not a criminal because he did not get caught.
Click to expand...
"people always think something is ALL true." Catcher in the Rye
 
Goshin said:
I'm a bit confused, were you replying to Glinda or to me?
Click to expand...

To you Goshin. I think you universalized something that belongs exclusively to your son.

not trying to fight or be flippant, just a clarification.
 
Tiller was a celebrity and icon of the politically correct side of a hot button issue. Given his worth was at least 10,000 times greater than the average person we should rage over his murder accordingly.

There is a saying that if you go looking for trouble you’ll usually find it. Tiller was looking for trouble. The money too good for him to turn down. Of the slaughter house the world is, his is about at the bottom of murders that would bother me. At least he died quickly. Many people don’t have it so good when death comes to them as it comes to everyone. I don’t see why his life was worth any more or less than anyone else. But that’s now most people see it. Most people see it that there are some people who matter and everyone else is irrelevant nobodies.

Regardless of legalities or stance on abortion, I can’t envision Tiller as a good hearted person. Late term abortions are done usually by either cutting the fetus apart inside the womb and sucking the pieces out or pulling the fetus out feet first and then sucking out the brain so the head collapses assuring death before delivery. Anyone who does that a few thousand times has the emotions of a Nazi death camp doctor regardless of legality or morality of abortion.

Setting aside the question of whether abortion is murder or not, ethical or unethical, it is the act of killing. He was in the killing business. Made millions off it. So he’s not someone invoking my sympathy for his death even if by murder. He was stupid to not think someone is going to come after him or to think other people somehow had a duty to protect him from his enemies he created.

This is not to minimize murder. Rather he's way, way down my cry about it list.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
So are we coming now full circle to what was discussed at the front of this thread?

Roeder is a criminal because he got caught. Tiller is not a criminal because he did not get caught.
Click to expand...

These arguments always go in circles. It's why I tend to avoid certain sections of the board(abortion, WOT, ME).

You are making assumptions. Tiller might have just not broken the law. So far, the only evidence that he has in fact broke the law is a little hearsay and a lot of angry accusations without any proof or real evidence.
 
Redress said:
Tiller might have just not broken the law. So far, the only evidence that he has in fact broke the law is a little hearsay and a lot of angry accusations without any proof or real evidence.
Click to expand...

If Tiller in fact broke the law, there is a methodology in place to address that law-breaking.

If people disapprove of abortion, this is a representative democracy. They should work to address this issue at the state and local level with their elected representatives.

There is simply no good reason for this sort of lawless, vigilante-style "justice."

Frankly, there is no difference between those who cheerlead this behavior (or at the least, withhold their condemnation and pretend as if it is somehow justified), and those who do celebrate bombings directed at U.S. service personnel in the middle east.


In both cases, you are talking about individuals who feel that their moral crusades are so important and significant that they trump the rights and voices of everyone else in society.

Bull****.
 
Captain America said:
I'll give ya thanks on this one, however, I would also include the terrorists that kill them or blow their clinics to smithereens. May the devil stick a pitch fork up their crappers too. :lol: Neither are better than the other IMO.
Click to expand...

Captian are you anti-abortion on the belief that abortion is nothing more than the legal killing human babies in the womb?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If Tiller in fact broke the law, there is a methodology in place to address that law-breaking.

If people disapprove of abortion, this is a representative democracy. They should work to address this issue at the state and local level with their elected representatives.

There is simply no good reason for this sort of lawless, vigilante-style "justice."

Frankly, there is no difference between those who cheerlead this behavior (or at the least, withhold their condemnation and pretend as if it is somehow justified), and those who do celebrate bombings directed at U.S. service personnel in the middle east.


In both cases, you are talking about individuals who feel that their moral crusades are so important and significant that they trump the rights and voices of everyone else in society.

Bull****.
Click to expand...

There is a sadly large element within the anti-abortion movement that does use vigilantism to make their points. Harassment and threats are a major portion of working at an abortion clinic.
 
It's funny how those that believe they are right use Violence because they think they are right.

Using their logic, it would be "heroic" for someone that thought gay marriage should be legalized to kill someone who thought gay marriage should be illegal.
 
Redress said:
Didn't Ayers admit to the bombing, while Tiller has not, and is only slandered by those who are trying to make a political point?
Click to expand...
BBC NEWS | Americas | Profile: George Tiller

This is a bias, obviously from the Brussels broadcasting corporation on this subject, but it states:

He has acknowledged performing abortions on some late-term patients with healthy foetuses.

Reportedly among them were girls as young as 10, rape victims, alcoholics, drug addicts, and women who were suicidal or depressed.

It is not conclusive and does not justify his killing but he does not look like a good man to me. If he was doing late-term abortions when the mother is in great danger then he is a monster and he was certainly no help to the legal abortion cause.
 
Voidwar said:
To you Goshin. I think you universalized something that belongs exclusively to your son.

not trying to fight or be flippant, just a clarification.
Click to expand...

Ah. I understand. When you quoted Glinda then addressed someone unspecified (but sounded like me) it was a bit confusing.

In a sense you are correct, that "connection" that was made the day of the first ultrasound was indeed between me and my unborn son, and was in a way very special and unique.

Yet, is a baby a baby because the parents believe it is? Does the baby's personhood cease if the parents cease to regard it as such? This doesn't make sense to me. Things are what they are, and people are people whether you believe they are or not.

To resort to a tired cliche, there was a time when most whites didn't consider nonwhites to be "people" per se...but they were anyway, weren't they?

I can decline to regard the law of gravity, and it will pull me just the same.

When I was very young and had known no Asians, it was easy to regard them as strange beings, almost like aliens... as if they were not quite "real". Once I had known one Asian, and realized that person as a person, I internalized the concept of "all Asians as people much like me".

I was once wishy-washy on the subject of abortion, as I said. I didn't quite have the concept of the unborn-as-people really internalized. Then I saw my son on the ultrasound and knew him as a real person... on that day, in the same manner as Asians above, I knew that class of humans called "the unborn" as all being persons, based on knowing one as a person.

Realizing on a level deeper than mere intellectualization that the unborn are humans deserving of human consideration, I could never again view abortion in a disintrested manner.

Disagree with me if you wish, I was simply explaining how I came to believe what I believe on the topic.

G.
 
Redress said:
There is a sadly large element within the anti-abortion movement that does use vigilantism to make their points. Harassment and threats are a major portion of working at an abortion clinic.
Click to expand...


I have seen reports on TV that this person has violated Federal laws many times over the years in reguards to harrassment a vadalism of abortion clinics, and was reported to the FBI on several occasions and they refused to do anything about it.
 
goldendog said:
I have seen reports on TV that this person has violated Federal laws many times over the years in reguards to harrassment a vadalism of abortion clinics, and was reported to the FBI on several occasions and they refused to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

If that is accurate, it would be particularly sad. Something needs to be done about the terrorist tactics used by elements within the anti-abortion movement.
 
Redress said:
If that is accurate, it would be particularly sad. Something needs to be done about the terrorist tactics used by elements within the anti-abortion movement.
Click to expand...

Yes but something has to be done about late-term abortions, at least those when the mother is not in serious danger.

I simply don't understand how late-term abortions helps the pro-legal abortion movement.
 
Wessexman said:
Yes but something has to be done about late-term abortions, at least those when the mother is not in serious danger.
Click to expand...


It's called the law, proved what he did was wrong. That is the problem, the anti-abortion crowd COULDN'T. Some may say the mother wasn't in danger, but they can't be proven wrong.

So, because they couldn't one man felt he should kill the abortion doctor.

So what does that say? When the right doesn't get what they want, it is ok to kill someone over it.

Sorry, but it hurts the Pro-life crowd more than it hurts the Pro-Choice crowd.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's called the law, proved what he did was wrong. That is the problem, the anti-abortion crowd COULDN'T. Some may say the mother wasn't in danger, but they can't be proven wrong.

So, because they couldn't one man felt he should kill the abortion doctor.

So what does that say? When the right doesn't get what they want, it is ok to kill someone over it.

Sorry, but it hurts the Pro-life crowd more than it hurts the Pro-Choice crowd.
Click to expand...
What is your point? The law can be wrong, laws can be changed.

Late term abortion for anything but the serious health of the mother, and perhaps debatably for completely unviable fetuses who are brain-dead and such, are not a good place for the legal abortionists to fight on.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
What is your point? The law can be wrong, laws can be changed.

Late term abortion for anything but the serious health of the mother, and perhaps debatably for completely unviable fetuses who are brain-dead and such, are not a good place for the legal abortionists to fight on.
Click to expand...

This is kinda the point. If there is a problem with the law, change it. I have no problem with that, though don't expect my support in actually changing it in this case. The problem is that, while attempting to change the law, those who are acting within the law are being the victim of what can only be described as terrorism. The further problem is the attitude that some one who is acting within the law, doing what he feels is right, is some kind of monster and his murder is somehow deserved.
 
Wessexman said:
What is your point? The law can be wrong, laws can be changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like the law is wrong for Gay Marriage being illegal, but you and many others still say it is the right thing to be against gay marriage. But regardless gay marriage is illegal, that doesn't mean I am going to kill people that are against gay marriage.


Wessexman said:
Late term abortion for anything but the serious health of the mother, and perhaps debatably for completely unviable fetuses who are brain-dead and such, are not a good place for the legal abortionists to fight on.
Click to expand...

And those people could not prove this doctor did not do that.

Again, why does that mean this doctor deserved to be killed?

No matter what you say, a law being wrong in the U.S. does not give the right for people to kill over it.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, just like the law is wrong for Gay Marriage being illegal, but you and many others still say it is the right thing to be against gay marriage. But regardless gay marriage is illegal, that doesn't mean I am going to kill people that are against gay marriage.
Click to expand...
What? Firstly I did not justify the murder of Tiller and secondly I'm lukewarmly supportive of GM or at least civil unions.



And those people could not prove this doctor did not do that.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the DA was removed and one that would not properly carry on the prosecution replaced him, but that is no excuse for his murder.

Again, why does that mean this doctor deserved to be killed?
Click to expand...
When did I say it did?
 
Wessexman said:
What? Firstly I did not justify the murder of Tiller and secondly I'm lukewarmly supportive of GM or at least civil unions.



As I understand it the DA was removed and one that would not properly carry on the prosecution replaced him, but that is no excuse for his murder.

When did I say it did?
Click to expand...

Ok so basically you are saying Tiller is guilty and your support and evidence is what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom