• 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

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

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."
Click to expand...

Roeder was an extremist nut who saw himself as part of a political and ideological force whose responsibility it was to stop abortionists. His activities in the past have been well documented by good journalism and the FBI.

There is no denying that this guy was political. This was not an isolated incident.
 
Orius said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was giving a specific answer to a technical question. I was not offering opinion.

Orius said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was not an act of terrorism no mater how much you want it to be.

Orius said:
No matter what he did that you think is morally wrong, there were other ways to challenge this. Killing him was not the answer.
Click to expand...

Please note the post in purple where I say the same thing ;)
 
Ethereal said:
Don't you see the problem with this statement? How can someone's intent be crystal clear?
Click to expand...

The circumstances surrounding the act make it so. If you owe me money and I kill you. There is nothing blurry about that. I killed you cause you owed me money. If you associate with terrorists who's goal is to promote a political agenda through intimidation & violence, and you kill an abortion provider in broad daylight and don't even try to hide who you are, there is nothing blurry about why you did it and what your goal was.

This has nothing to do with my views on Islam. I'm just not convinced that this was a terrorist attack. It's obvious Osama is obsessed with Americans. He sees Americans as evil individuals, so he murders them. 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.
Click to expand...

The different between this guy and Osama is that Osama managed to kill 3,000. This guy got caught after the first.
 
Oh, I'm sure I'll regret this, but just like watching a train wreck, it's hard to not watch this.

Jerry, here you said this:

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

Now, notice the word in bold. Since this is a semantical thread, I will define the word "assassinate" which is what is being described in your post:

tr.v., -nat·ed, -nat·ing, -nates.
  • To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.
  • To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.
assassinate: Definition from Answers.com
Click to expand...

Notice definition #1: to murder. Please tell us how that coordinates with this post:

Jerry said:
Sure, [Scott Roeder is]guilty of a crime on the level of a parking violation. That's all Dr. Tiller was worth.
Click to expand...

Please tell us how murder... extrapolated from you indicating that Dr. Tiller was assassinated is equivalent to that of a parking violation.

Or was that just you speaking morally, not legally.
 
Jerry said:
This was not an act of terrorism no mater how much you want it to be.
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing to counter the evidence I posted indicating that he was part of domestic terrorist activities, just your say so. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. He was part of the "Army of God" and saw himself as the force to bring political change in world of abortion. He openly supported the same groups that are responsible for clinic bombings and death threats.

This was politically motivated no matter how much you don't want it to be.
 
Jerry said:
I do not think it was acceptable to execute Dr. Tiller and I've specifically stated so already.
Click to expand...

Tiller was not executed, he was murdered. There is a large, unsubtle distinction there.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who cares what you view it as. Your view is not the law.

jamesrage said:
Roeder only killed one man nor did he blow up anything, so trying to call it terrorism is absurd.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is not defined by how many people are killed or what method they use to kill. Were the guys who beheaded Daniel Pearl terrorists? Of course they were.

jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

A. We are a nation of laws, and a democratic society. If you don't like the law, get it changed. You have no right to commit acts of vigilantism when the government (which was elected by the people, or appointed by elected officials) has decided that something is not illegal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Please tell us how murder... extrapolated from you indicating that Dr. Tiller was assassinated is equivalent to that of a parking violation.
Click to expand...

My claim was to balance the accusation of 'terrorist'.

I was not speaking legally or morally, I was fighting hyperbolic rhetoric with hyperbolic rhetoric; illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
 
Redress said:
Tiller was not executed, he was murdered. There is a large, unsubtle distinction there.
Click to expand...

"Execute" was danarhea's word, post 128.

So you accept that I object to the method Dr. Tiller's life came to an end and now move on to correct my word usage.

Ok, I accept your correction, that seems only fair as you accepted my argument and dropped any notion that I support vigilantism.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Correction. The Kansas Justice System. I'm surprised this guy hasn't been given community service already.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate.
 
Coronado said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Kansas doesn't have a reputation as being backwards for no reason. But if you state these reasons, you know : religion, education, state laws etc. Then you're a bigot for calling something backwards even though you could care less about it at the end of the day. Remember, this is the same state who allows supernatural explanations for scientific events.
 
Hatuey said:
Kansas doesn't have a reputation as being backwards for no reason. But if you state these reasons, you know : religion, education, state laws etc. Then you're a bigot for calling something backwards even though you could care less about it at the end of the day. Remember, this is the same state who allows supernatural explanations for scientific events.
Click to expand...
A reputation that is unwarranted. The whole debate began when the state BOE elected to let the individual school districts decide what would be taught in their own schools on the subject, rather than dictated to them by Topeka. The press got hold of this and, as usual, wrote the story they wanted with the facts that suited their preconceived notions and the rest is history.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
All he said was that he would allow the defense to make such an argument; he never said he sympathized with it.
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair point. People should be allowed their defense and if they want to make a "manslaughter" claim they should be allowed for it. Now the evidence against it is rather clear cut, I don't know how they could even make a manslaughter claim. But whatever. Throw the dude in jail, he belongs there, and that's that.
 
Coronado said:
A reputation that is unwarranted. The whole debate began when the state BOE elected to let the individual school districts decide what would be taught in their own schools on the subject, rather than dictated to them by Topeka. The press got hold of this and, as usual, wrote the story they wanted with the facts that suited their preconceived notions and the rest is history.
Click to expand...

Unwarranted? You just supported exactly what I said. Letting individual school districts decide what will be taught in their "own" publicly funded schools is conservative double talk for being too backwards to have a real curriculum that is up to any kind of standards. If you want to pretend that this is some local issue that nobody else understands, that is fine. But don't come around here telling us that Kansas isn't backwards even though they are the state who allows supernatural explanations for scientific events.
 
Hatuey said:
Unwarranted? You just supported exactly what I said. Letting individual school districts decide what will be taught in their "own" publicly funded schools is conservative double talk for being too backwards to have a real curriculum that is up to any kind of standards. If you want to pretend that this is some local issue that nobody else understands, that is fine. But don't come around here telling us that Kansas isn't backwards even though they are the state who allows supernatural explanations for scientific events.
Click to expand...
Sorry to interrupt your bigoted diatribe with facts. I mean, it's not like I grew up there and was living there at the time or anything. :roll:

I will remember to avoid confusing you with facts in the future.
 
Coronado said:
Sorry to interrupt your bigoted diatribe with facts. I mean, it's not like I grew up there and was living there at the time or anything. :roll:

I will remember to avoid confusing you with facts in the future.
Click to expand...

When you present any facts talk. Until then. You are just defending the backwards mentality of Kansas. Not surprised considering you're a Libertarian.
 
Hatuey said:
When you present any facts talk. Until then. You are just defending the backwards mentality of Kansas. Not surprised considering you're a Libertarian.
Click to expand...
I presented facts. You presented ad hominem. Learn the difference.
 
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...

SO by logic any murderer and gang banger should be charged as terrorist.
 
Hatuey said:
Kansas doesn't have a reputation as being backwards for no reason. But if you state these reasons, you know : religion, education, state laws etc. Then you're a bigot for calling something backwards even though you could care less about it at the end of the day. Remember, this is the same state who allows supernatural explanations for scientific events.
Click to expand...

re-discovery-periodic-table-element.jpg
 
Hatuey said:
When you present any facts talk. Until then. You are just defending the backwards mentality of Kansas. Not surprised considering you're a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

He did prevent facts. He mentioned that it was an issue of the state vs. local control of the school curriculum, which is a completely different issue than whether or not intelligent design should be "allowed" to be taught. So far your only argument against this is "no it's not". Stop trying to alter reality to fit your world view. Until then. You are just defending your own elitism and smugness.
 
danarhea said:
re-discovery-periodic-table-element.jpg
Click to expand...

Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?
 
Dav said:
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between tolerance, and teaching. I have no problem with, say, Creationism. If people want to believe that, it is fine. However, it's not science, and teaching it in science class as such is pushing an agenda on your children.
 
Redress said:
There is a difference between tolerance, and teaching. I have no problem with, say, Creationism. If people want to believe that, it is fine. However, it's not science, and teaching it in science class as such is pushing an agenda on your children.
Click to expand...
Not to go off on a tangent, but that's a damn good reason to get the state out of the education business. You don't like what your school teaches? Go somewhere else.
 
Dav said:
He did prevent facts. He mentioned that it was an issue of the state vs. local control of the school curriculum, which is a completely different issue than whether or not intelligent design should be "allowed" to be taught. So far your only argument against this is "no it's not". Stop trying to alter reality to fit your world view. Until then. You are just defending your own elitism and smugness.
Click to expand...

Ah the resident 14 year old comes around. At the end of the day it is a matter of local ignorance. That of Kansas denizens. Not whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Which it shouldn't anyways. That people in Kansas actually supported it just shows exactly what I was talking about. That Kansas doesn't have a reputation as being backwards for no reason. The fact that their school boards would even allow the explanation of 'supernatural' for certain events is ridiculous in the 21st century and shows the state of Kansas for what it is, a place full of religious and ignorant people. End of story. You don't like it? Too bad.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom