• 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

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




Calling back to the begining of our exchange:



Since "very bad person" does not = "terrorist", let's keep the hysteria to a minimum shall we?
Click to expand...

By my definition, he is a terrorist. No hysteria, only extreme acts of vileness by a vile and worthless human being.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've read the entire thread. I see now where you are arguing over whether or not his actions were considered to be "terrorist" in nature.

I am not concerned with that, to be honest.

I am just pointing out that while the doctor was preforming what you and I would consider to be immoral late term abortions; that does not give the right to any other person to go up to him and shoot him in the head.

The law is very clear - abortion is legal (whether you agree with it or not) and walking up to another person that has different morals than you and allegedly shooting them in the head (for whatever reason) is illegal.

A person may feel pornography is immoral, but it is legal (adult pornography to be clear), so does that give another person who feels those people participating in porn are immoral, the right to attack or murder them?

No.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
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.
Click to expand...

The legality of many of those late-term abortions are still in question.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I condemn vigilantism. So yes, I would react the same if it was a serial killer. Being a nation of laws is important.
 
Jerry said:
The legality of many of those late-term abortions are still in question.
Click to expand...

Then get a conviction in the court of laws. Oh wait, too late for that in this case, some one took that chance away from you.
 
Redress said:
I condemn vigilantism. So yes, I would react the same if it was a serial killer. Being a nation of laws is important.
Click to expand...

Ok. You win on DP's favorite game show... HYPOCRISY CHECK! Not many do. ;)

But remember, these are YOUR morals... they may not apply to others.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I've read the entire thread. I see now where you are arguing over whether or not his actions were considered to be "terrorist" in nature.

I am not concerned with that, to be honest.

I am just pointing out that while the doctor was preforming what you and I would consider to be immoral late term abortions; that does not give the right to any other person to go up to him and shoot him in the head.

The law is very clear - abortion is legal (whether you agree with it or not) and walking up to another person that has different morals than you and allegedly shooting them in the head (for whatever reason) is illegal.

A person may feel pornography is immoral, but it is legal (adult pornography to be clear), so does that give another person who feels those people participating in porn are immoral, the right to attack or murder them?

No.
Click to expand...

You dropped what you were originally asking about and are now attempting to misrepresent and re-frame the discussion as though anyone were inserting morality into law.

I was playing ScottD's and Redress's logic against itself. I was not asserting my own argument.

If one has to be convicted of a crime to deserve a punishment, then Redress and ScottD were wrong to assert that Scott Roeder deserves a punishment as he has not been convicted.

If it is acceptable to assume Scott Roeder deserves punishment without conviction, then it is also acceptable to assume Dr. Tiller deserved punishment without conviction.

Their arguments were contradictory in that they failed to abide by their own requirements.
 
Redress said:
Then get a conviction in the court of laws. Oh wait, too late for that in this case, some one took that chance away from you.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer connected to the case, to have ever had the chance to begin with :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
You dropped what you were originally asking about and are now attempting to misrepresent and re-frame the discussion as though anyone were inserting morality into law.

I was playing ScottD's and Redress's logic against itself. I was not asserting my own argument.

If one has to be convicted of a crime to deserve a punishment, then Redress and ScottD were wrong to assert that Scott Roeder deserves a punishment as he has not been convicted.

If it is acceptable to assume Scott Roeder deserves punishment without conviction, then it is also acceptable to assume Dr. Tiller deserved punishment without conviction.

Their arguments were contradictory in that they failed to abide by their own requirements.
Click to expand...

Please show where I said anything about Roeder deserving punishment without a trial. Don't make **** up Jerry.
 
Redress said:
By my definition, he is a terrorist. No hysteria, only extreme acts of vileness by a vile and worthless human being.
Click to expand...

Your definition doesn't count for anything, though.
 
Jerry said:
When you say something is "yours" you are saying it belongs to that person.




Calling back to the begining of our exchange:



Since "very bad person" does not = "terrorist", let's keep the hysteria to a minimum shall we?
Click to expand...

He went into a church and shot a man in the head, terrorizing men, women, and children, who were praying. He IS a terrorist.
 
Redress said:
Please show where I said anything about Roeder deserving punishment without a trial. Don't make **** up Jerry.
Click to expand...

Post 5, your argument assumes Scott Roeder committed a crime, but that has yet to be established.
 
danarhea said:
He went into a church and shot a man in the head, terrorizing men, women, and children, who were praying. He IS a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Making people afraid is not what "terrorism" is.
 
18 U.S.C. §2331:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

yes it can be argued that it was terrorism.
 
Personally I hope Scott Roeder get's off with a light sentence.

Dr. Tiller was a monster and I'm glad he's dead. The world is much better off without him.
 
This was not an act of terrorism, period. Please do not cheapen the meaning of the word by trying to imply that it was.
 
marduc said:
18 U.S.C. §2331:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

yes it can be argued that it was terrorism.
Click to expand...

If that were true then he would be charged with terrorism.

But he's not.

The panty-bomber wasn't even charged with terrorism.
 
Jerry said:
Making people afraid is not what "terrorism" is.
Click to expand...

Actually, it IS, according to the definition:

terrorist - somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes.
Click to expand...

That is the dictionary definition of a terrorist, but you earlier posted a legal definition consisting of 6 points. That's all fine and good, except that you are claiming the doctor to be a mass murderer, when the law says that he is not.

The problem with your arguments, Jerry, is that you use the legal definition of something only when it suits your purpose, which makes your argument two faced and invalid. You can't have it both ways. If you choose the legal definition of a terrorist, then you must also choose the legal definition for the abortion doctor. Anything else is patently dishonest.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, it IS, according to the definition:



That is the dictionary definition of a terrorist, but you earlier posted a legal definition consisting of 6 points. That's all fine and good, except that you are claiming the doctor to be a mass murderer, when the law says that he is not.

The problem with your arguments, Jerry, is that you use the legal definition of something only when it suits your purpose, which makes your argument two faced and invalid. You can't have it both ways. If you choose the legal definition of a terrorist, then you must also choose the legal definition for the abortion doctor. Anything else is patently dishonest.
Click to expand...

:prof Bing < US Code
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, it IS, according to the definition:



That is the dictionary definition of a terrorist, but you earlier posted a legal definition consisting of 6 points. That's all fine and good, except that you are claiming the doctor to be a mass murderer, when the law says that he is not.

The problem with your arguments, Jerry, is that you use the legal definition of something only when it suits your purpose, which makes your argument two faced and invalid. You can't have it both ways. If you choose the legal definition of a terrorist, then you must also choose the legal definition for the abortion doctor. Anything else is patently dishonest.
Click to expand...

This was not a terrorist act. It was a murder.
 
Jerry said:
:prof Bing < US Code
Click to expand...

The US code means that the killer executed an innocent man. Like I said, you must apply the same standard to both cases. Otherwise, you are being dishonest. You can't pick the US code whenever you decide it applies, and reject it elsewhere.
 
Jerry said:
Personally I hope Scott Roeder get's off with a light sentence.

Dr. Tiller was a monster and I'm glad he's dead. The world is much better off without him.
Click to expand...
thats very sad
 
Redress said:
I am hopeful that the argument does not fare well. I find it hard to see any situation where this is anything other than premeditated murder. I doubt the terrorism charge would work well, though to my mind it is certainly possible to see the argument. He certainly terrorized some innocent churchgoers.

I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Post 5, your argument assumes Scott Roeder committed a crime, but that has yet to be established.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, it is not disputed that he shot a man in a church. Nothing there presumes a guilty conviction, only the facts of the case as presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom