• 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

That has yet to be seen. I don't say that out of opinion or my distaste of late-term abortion, but because many of those abortions are still of questionable legality.

Until the legality of those abortions is resolved, I can't say.

Now you are just talking around the Q. According to the law that was in effect when the killer shot the doctor, the abortions were legal. So, under the law, did the killer commit murder? It's a simple question, actually. No need to try and tie yourself in knots attempting to avoid answering it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're talking about.

ALF, a terrorist group, is associated with PETA and PETA is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party. It is the reason no Democrat who wants a career in Washington would ever dream of actually going after ALF, ELF or PETA. Likewise the millions of pro-life people in this country who I'm sure applaud the work of this murderer are some of the biggest donors to the Republican Party. Do you not understand the political consequences of charging somebody who killed an abortion provider as a terrorist?

Okay, let's expand on that. What is it about the circumstances of the murder and the man's history that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent was to effectuate political and social intimidation?

1. Affiliation with terrorism supporters(I won't say terrorist because he hasn't been found guilty with anything) like David Leach.
2. Affiliation with terrorist groups like Army of God(through David Leach)
3. The target.

Seriously. You're being obtuse on purpose :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller#Trial_of_Scott_Roeder

David Leach, publisher of Prayer & Action News, a magazine that opines that the killing of abortion providers would be justifiable homicide, told reporters that he and Roeder had met once in the late 1990s and that Roeder at that time had authored contributions to Leach's publication.[39][40][41] Leach published the Army of God manual, which advocates the killing of the providers of abortion and contains bomb-making instructions, in the January 1996 issue of his magazine.[42] A Kansas acquaintance of Roeder's, Regina Dinwiddie, told a reporter after Tiller's murder (speaking of Roeder), "I know that he believed in justifiable homicide." Dinwiddie, an anti-abortion militant featured in the 2000 HBO documentary Soldiers in the Army of God, added that she had observed Roeder in 1996 enter Kansas City Planned Parenthood's abortion clinic and ask to talk to the physician there; after staring at him for nearly a minute, Roeder said, "I’ve seen you now," before turning and walking away.[43]

Roeder's former roommate of two years, Eddie Ebecher, who had met Roeder through the Freemen movement in the 1990s, told a reporter after Tiller's murder that he and Roeder had considered themselves members of the Army of God. Ebecher said Roeder was obsessed with Tiller and discussed killing him, but that Ebecher warned him not to do so. Ebecher, who went by the nom de guerre "Wolfgang Anacon," added that he believed Roeder held "high moral convictions in order to carry out this act. I feel that Scott had a burden for all the children being murdered."[44]

In 2007, someone who identified himself as Scott Roeder posted on the website of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue that, "Tiller is the concentration camp 'Mengele' of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation." This was reported by the ADL's Center on Extremism, noting that Roeder called for "the closing of his death camp."[34] [35] After Tiller's murder, officials from Operation Rescue, which had long opposed Tiller's abortion practices but denounced his shooting, said Roeder was not a contributor or member of the group.[24] The phone number for Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, was found on the dashboard of Scott Roeder's car[45]. At first, Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger denied any contact with Roeder, saying that her phone number is freely available online. Then, she revised her statements, indicating that Roeder’s interest was in court hearings involving Tiller.
 
Last edited:
Now you are just talking around the Q. According to the law that was in effect when the killer shot the doctor, the abortions were legal. So, under the law, did the killer commit murder? It's a simple question, actually. No need to try and tie yourself in knots attempting to avoid answering it.

We can not establish that for all of the abortions.
 
He doesn't meet the definition the US Government uses.

Nowhere have I claimed otherwise. I am still justified in calling him a terrorist however, I just cannot use it in a legal sense, and if you will note post 5 in this thread, I said basically that.
 
Nowhere have I claimed otherwise. I am still justified in calling him a terrorist however, I just cannot use it in a legal sense, and if you will note post 5 in this thread, I said basically that.

Subjective definitions are worthless.
 
That has yet to be seen. I don't say that out of opinion or my distaste of late-term abortion, but because many of those abortions are still of questionable legality.

Until the legality of those abortions is resolved, I can't say.

Which is simply weaseling out of it, since there is going to be no trial on the legality of those abortions. However, no trial has yet convicted him.
 
Subjective definitions are worthless.

They have value when talking about my subjective opinion, just as it's your subjective opinion that Tiller was a murderer.
 
ALF, a terrorist group, is associated with PETA and PETA is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party. It is the reason no Democrat who wants a career in Washington would ever dream of actually going after ALF, ELF or PETA.

Okay. I didn't know that.

Likewise the millions of pro-life people in this country who I'm sure applaud the work of this murderer are some of the biggest donors to the Republican Party. Do you not understand the political consequences of charging somebody who killed an abortion provider as a terrorist?

Why would the Obama Justice Department worry about offending pro-lifers?

1. Affiliation with terrorism supporters like David Leach.
2. Affiliation with terrorist groups like Army of God(through David Leach)
3. The target.

Seriously. You're being obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm just insisting that you make your case and establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. If that makes you upset, then perhaps we should terminate the discussion.
 
Do you have evidence that a crime was committed by the doctor?

Those cases are in litigation. The key doubt surrounds money paid to an associate doctor who was the only person to sign off on the late-term abortions. There is a question as to weather this doctor complied with the law in interviewing the women to establish a need, and there appears to be a conflict of interest regarding how much money he was paid per signature.

There is sufficient doubt to reasonably suggest that Dr. Tiller may have been performing illegal abortions. These cases are still in litigation.
 
Last edited:
Those cases are in litigation. The key doubt surrounds money paid to an associate doctor who was the only person to sign off on the late-term abortions. There is a question as to weather this doctor complied with the law in interviewing the women to establish a need, and there appears to be a conflict of interest regarding how much money he was paid per signature.

In other words, the doctor had not been convicted of anything, but you think it's OK to execute him for what you think might or might not be the case. Correct?
 
He committed a murder, and he will go to jail. There is no way around it. I just hope he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction because that would just be silly.

The doctor was not a criminal. Abortion is legal. I think we've settled that bit.

Was the gunman a terrorist? I would say yes because by killing the doctor he is sending a message to all other abortion doctors to not perform abortions lest they face violent consequences. Furthermore it sends a message of fear to women who might seek abortions to stay away from clinics because the clinics may be targeted for attacks. It tells government to change the policy or violence like it should be expected.

Wikipedia said:
Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Such incidents range from the vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, as committed by Eric Rudolph, to the murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp and Peter James Knight.

US CODE 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.

It fits the definition, even though murder charges will be sufficient.

Jerry, you are wrong.
 
Those cases are in litigation. The key doubt surrounds money paid to an associate doctor who was the only person to sign off on the late-term abortions. There is a question as to weather this doctor complied with the law in interviewing the women to establish a need, and there appears to be a conflict of interest regarding how much money he was paid per signature.

There is sufficient doubt to reasonably suggest that Dr. Tiller may have been performing illegal abortions. These cases are still in litigation.

Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant to the act of murder committed against him. Citizens don't carry out convictions and punishment, courts do. The doctor cannot be punished unless convicted, period.

The fact that you are still trying to justify the murder astounds me.
 
Okay. I didn't know that.

Now you do. Our government is pretty deep insde the hands of domestic terrorists.

Why would the Obama Justice Department worry about offending pro-lifers?

What does it gain? Let's see, an Obama Justice Department calls this man a terrorist and then what? Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and FOX & Friends have a field day saying that he will next ban Christianity. It is not a matter of what Obama gains but what he'd lose calling this duck for what it is. The political ramifications of calling a domestic terrorist a domestic terrorist are not just positive but also negative.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm just insisting that you make your case and establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. If that makes you upset, then perhaps we should terminate the discussion.

It seems to me and pretty much anybody who's looked at this from an objective view can see that the intentions behind his actions are crystal clear and they fall within the definition of terrorism. The only ones who don't seem to be those who think abortion is in fact, murder.
 
He committed a murder, and he will go to jail. There is no way around it. I just hope he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction because that would just be silly.

The doctor was not a criminal. Abortion is legal. I think we've settled that bit.

Was the gunman a terrorist? I would say yes because by killing the doctor he is sending a message to all other abortion doctors to not perform abortions lest they face violent consequences. Furthermore it sends a message of fear to women who might seek abortions to stay away from clinics because the clinics may be targeted for attacks. It tells government to change the policy or violence like it should be expected.



US CODE 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.

It fits the definition, even though murder charges will be sufficient.

Jerry, you are wrong.

But you're just assuming that was his motive. It's just as plausible that his motive was to kill someone he considered to be evil.
 
In other words, the doctor had not been convicted of anything, but you think it's OK to execute him for what you think might or might not be the case. Correct?

I do not think it was acceptable to execute Dr. Tiller and I've specifically stated so already.

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
.

I wanted to see Dr. Tiller convicted and sentenced to death.

That doesn't mean I wanted him assassinated.

I wanted the rule of law respected. Just because I'm glad to see Dr. Tiller leave this earth doesn't mean I advocate the way he went out; only that he did leave.
 
But you're just assuming that was his motive. It's just as plausible that his motive was to kill someone he considered to be evil.

In the open, in public, and in a church full of innocent women and children? He was making a political statement. Otherwise, he would have waylaid him in some secluded area.
 
Why get fancy about it?.....:confused:
He is a cold blooded executioner....
His penalty should be the same.......:2wave:
 
Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant to the act of murder committed against him. Citizens don't carry out convictions and punishment, courts do. The doctor cannot be punished unless convicted, period.

The fact that you are still trying to justify the murder astounds me.

See I haven't even tried to do that, so wtf are you talking about?
 
But you're just assuming that was his motive. It's just as plausible that his motive was to kill someone he considered to be evil.

Wikipedia said:
Murder of George Tiller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiller was shot in the head at point blank range; he was wearing body armor, as he had been since 1998, when the FBI told him he was targeted by anti-abortion extremists

The FBI has been involved with protecting Tiller and monitoring the extremists since 1993 when his clinic was fire bombed by them. These are domestic terrorists who are organized and act in the name of political agendas.

Of course it was his motive. He chose the most public place imaginable to carry out this act. If he wanted to kill Tiller and get away with it, there are many other ways to try and conceal his identity. He didn't want that. He wanted full public disclosure.

He is a terrorist... legally, ideologically, and morally.
 
See I haven't even tried to do that, so wtf are you talking about?

You're trying to downplay what happened by bringing up Tiller's court cases regarding partial birth abortion, as if that some how mitigates his murder. This was an act of domestic terrorist plain and simple. Tiller has been a target by these radical extremists for years and the FBI has been well involved.

No matter what he did that you think is morally wrong, there were other ways to challenge this. Killing him was not the answer.
 
Now you do. Our government is pretty deep insde the hands of domestic terrorists.

What does it gain? Let's see, an Obama Justice Department calls this man a terrorist and then what? Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and FOX & Friends have a field day saying that he will next ban Christianity. It is not a matter of what Obama gains but what he'd lose calling this duck for what it is. The political ramifications of calling a domestic terrorist a domestic terrorist are not just positive but also negative.

Fair enough.

It seems to me and pretty much anybody who's looked at this from an objective view can see that the intentions behind his actions are crystal clear and they fall within the definition of terrorism.

Don't you see the problem with this statement? How can someone's intent be crystal clear?

The only ones who don't seem to be those who think abortion is in fact, murder.

This has nothing to do with my views on abortion. I'm just not convinced that this was a terrorist attack. It's obvious the killer was obsessed with Tiller and that he saw Tiller as an evil individual, so he murdered him. Any motivations he may have had beyond that are not readily ascertainable, which means, in a court of law, there is no justification for charging him with terrorism. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, perhaps you could charge him with terrorism, but I think it would really be stretching it. Time for bed.

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom