• 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

It wasn't terrorism.

Please keep the hysteria to a minimum :2wave:

Did it create terror? Yes.

Are the acts of some on the anti-abortion side aimed at terrifying those who perform or would receive abortions? Yes.

What else would you call it then? Oh, that's right, it's only terrorism when you don't agree with the cause...
 
Dr. Tiller deserved to die, I'm glad we agree.

Dr. Tiller should have been tried and put to the needle, instead of an assassin's bullet, I'm sure we agree there also.

We live in a country of laws. Tiller was not convicted of a crime. Therefore he did not deserve to die. Without that conviction, he did not deserve to die, and even with that conviction, he would not have been killed. So sorry, you are wrong.
 
As it stands today, neither did Scott Roeder.

That will almost certainly change soon, and when he is convicted, as he almost certainly will be, he will serve his time as he should. He is a villain and a scoundrel and people like him deserve what they get.
 
Regardless of what YOU think about abortion, it is not illegal in the country. Why should people have to die for performing legal medical procedures?


You view it as a medical procedure I view it as the act of taking an innocent human life. And he viewed abortion especially late term abortion as act of taking an innocent life. SO trying to call it a medical procedure doesn't fly.


I'm not sure I see the difference. Terrorists don't have to kill multiple people for it to be terrorism. The general goal of terrorism (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit here) is to murder civilians to advance a political agenda, which is exactly what Mr. Roeder did.

Roeder only killed one man nor did he blow up anything, so trying to call it terrorism is absurd.
If you had evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson was breaking the law, what would be the better course of action: A) Turn that evidence over to the police so that they can arrest him and try him in accordance with the law, B) Shoot him while he's sitting in church and not bothering anyone.

What if the law said that they were not going to do anything regardless what ever evidence you gave them and a civilian did do something about it? Would A) condemn the man who took out that serial killer even though that serial killer being left alone would have resulted in more lives being taken or do you B) applaud the civilian for taking out the serial killer because a dead serial killer means that he will no longer be able to take another innocent human life?
 
Did it create terror? Yes.

Are the acts of some on the anti-abortion side aimed at terrifying those who perform or would receive abortions? Yes.

What else would you call it then? Oh, that's right, it's only terrorism when you don't agree with the cause...

Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

Scott Roeder's act:

  • Premeditated? Yes
    [*]Politically motivated? No.
    [*]Violence? Yes.
    [*]Against noncombatant targets? No.
    [*]Was Scott Roeder a member of a subnational group? No.
    [*]Was Scott Roeder a clandestine agent? No.

In order to be a terrorist act the act must meet all of the above 6 criteria.

Scott Roeder's act only fulfills 2 of the 6 criteria, hence his act was not terrorism.

It was some form of manslaughter yet to be determined.
 
Last edited:
We live in a country of laws. Tiller was not convicted of a crime. Therefore he did not deserve to die. Without that conviction, he did not deserve to die, and even with that conviction, he would not have been killed. So sorry, you are wrong.

Scott Roeder hasn't been convicted of a crime either, so by your logic he doesn't today deserve any punishment.

That will almost certainly change soon, and when he is convicted, as he almost certainly will be, he will serve his time as he should. He is a villain and a scoundrel and people like him deserve what they get.

It only seems fair, as Mr. Tiller already got what he deserved.
 
Last edited:
If Scott Roeder was a secret member of Army of God and began indiscriminately shooting people in the abortion clinic, then it would be an act of terrorism.
 
Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

Scott Roeder's act:

  • Premeditated? Yes
    [*]Politically motivated? No.
    [*]Violence? Yes.
    [*]Against noncombatant targets? No.
    [*]Was Scott Roeder a member of a subnational group? No.
    [*]Was Scott Roeder a clandestine agent? No.

In order to be a terrorist act the act must meet all of the above 6 criteria.

Scott Roeder's act only fulfills 2 of the 6 criteria, hence his act was not terrorism.

It was some form of manslaughter yet to be determined.

Politically motivated should be a yes, as should noncombatant target. That's 4 out of 6, using your definition.
 
How do you draw that conclusion.

In post 21 ScottD established that in order to diserve to die one must be convicted of a crime.

To date, Scott Roeder has not been convicted of a crime, therefore Scott Roeder deserves no punishment; according to ScottD's logic.
 
and i thought anti-abortionist respected life, or is it only life that suites there pupose?
 
Politically motivated should be a yes

He did not perform the act specifically so as to influence policy, he did it to stop one person from continuing a behavior, so it's a no.

as should noncombatant target.

Mr. Tiller had more blood on his hands, so that's a no also.


***
Even if we accepted these 2 changes, that's still only 4 out of 6, which if my math serves me means the act is 2 qualifyers short of being "terrorism".
 
and i thought anti-abortionist respected life, or is it only life that suites there pupose?

I share in your confusion because I thought pro-choice respected bodily sovereignty, or do they only respect the sovereignty of bodies which serve their purposes?
 
He did not perform the act specifically so as to influence policy, he did it to stop one person from continuing a behavior, so it's a no.

That is an assumption, and I tend to disagree.



Mr. Tiller had more blood on his hands, so that's a no also.

He was not a soldier. You are using the same logic that terrorists who target civilians in this country use.

Even if we accepted these 2 changes, that's still only 4 out of 6, which if my math serves me means the act is 2 qualifyers short of being "terrorism".

That is your definition, I don't necessarily agree with it, and 4 out of 6 qualifiers using your definition certainly makes him at least close to a terrorist.
 
In post 21 ScottD established that in order to diserve to die one must be convicted of a crime.

To date, Scott Roeder has not been convicted of a crime, therefore Scott Roeder deserves no punishment; according to ScottD's logic.

He said:

Dr. Tiller committed no crime.

And you said:


As it stands today, neither did Scott Roeder.

Commited, not convicted. He has not been convicted, but he has been charged and the question as to his innocence or guilt will be determined soon enough.

So I could walk into any old church and shoot some guy in the head because I don't have the same moral beliefs as he does.

As the law is written now (and I'm not saying I agree with it!) it is NOT illegal to preform abortions.

It IS however, illegal to shoot someone in the head.

Has he been convicted? No, and it is "innocent until proven guilty", but I'm curious how many of the church congregation will be subpoenaed since they witnessed the doctor's execution.
 
If convicted, he should not get the death penalty.
 
That is your definition....

US Code Title 22, CHAPTER 38, § 2656f

I didn't write it, but it makes sense that you would assume I did given the inherent authority I transmit through logic.

....I don't necessarily agree with it, and 4 out of 6 qualifiers using your definition certainly makes him at least close to a terrorist.

Close to being a terrorist = not a terrorist.
 
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.

This is, so far, true. Jamesrage has demonstrated that, amongst our conservatives that have posted on this thread, only he takes the ridiculous and hypocritical position of not agreeing with murder one. Good to see that most of our conservatives are consistent in this sense.
 
He said:



And you said:




Commited, not convicted. He has not been convicted, but he has been charged and the question as to his innocence or guilt will be determined soon enough.

So I could walk into any old church and shoot some guy in the head because I don't have the same moral beliefs as he does.

As the law is written now (and I'm not saying I agree with it!) it is NOT illegal to preform abortions.

It IS however, illegal to shoot someone in the head.

Has he been convicted? No, and it is "innocent until proven guilty", but I'm curious how many of the church congregation will be subpoenaed since they witnessed the doctor's execution.

I suggest using the little blue track-back button to follow that line of conversation back to post 5 where Redress sets the context of everything to follow to fall into the scope of who has been duly convicted of a crime and who has not.
 
US Code Title 22, CHAPTER 38, § 2656f

I didn't write it, but it makes sense that you would assume I did given the inherent authority I transmit through logic.

It is the definition you used, hence why I called it yours. It is also, as best I can tell, not a legal definition, but the definition used for the annual country reports on terrorism.

Close to being a terrorist = not a terrorist.

It certainly makes him a very bad person at the very least.
 
Jerry, from your augments its sound like you support anarchy. We're a country of laws that we have to live by. We can't shoot people, because they have different morals than us.

Again, abortion is legal in the Untied states of America.
 
Last edited:
There are two issues here. The first is a legal one. Was what Dr. Tiller doing illegal? Absolutely not. Was what Scott Roeder did illegal? Absolutely. These are legal facts and are not disputable.

The second issue is a moral one. Was what Dr. Tiller doing immoral? Was what Scott Roeder did immoral? That is for each of us to decide, and IS disputable.
 
Last edited:
There are two issues here. The first is a legal one. Was Dr. Tiller doing illegal? Absolutely not. Was what Scott Roeder did illegal? Absolutely. These are legal facts and are not disputable.

The second issue is a moral one. Was what Dr. Tiller doing immoral? Was what Scott Roeder did immoral? That is for each of us to decide, and IS disputable.

We don't base our legal system on personal morality. We base it on laws. People are free to defend Roeder, but it is revealing of their personal morality or lack thereof.
 
We don't base our legal system on personal morality. We base it on laws. People are free to defend Roeder, but it is revealing of their personal morality or lack thereof.

I don't know if I'd go that far, though, to question the morality of someone who would defend Rioeder. They may not be defending his actions, per se, but attacking the actions of Dr. Tiller. A means to an end so to speak. Would you defend the actions of someone who killed a serial killer? This is how pro-lifers view Dr. Tiller.
 
Last edited:
It is the definition you used, hence why I called it yours.

When you say something is "yours" you are saying it belongs to that person.

It certainly makes him a very bad person at the very least.


Calling back to the begining of our exchange:

If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.
It wasn't terrorism.

Please keep the hysteria to a minimum
:2wave:

Since "very bad person" does not = "terrorist", let's keep the hysteria to a minimum shall we?
 
Back
Top Bottom