• 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!

Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

SgtRock said:
While I agree Roeder is an extreamist and what he did was wrong there is a difference. Roeder killed a Docter who kills babies because he wanted to stop Tiller from killing babies. Muslim extreamist kill innocent men women and babies indiscriminately because they are evil. Dr Tiller was closer to a muslim extreamist than Scott Roeder is.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that I'm talking about.

Terrorists don't kill innocent people 'because they are evil'. They do it because it will further their goals and/or ideals. They believe that their ideals are more important than the lives they are taking, and religion plays a large part in their reasoning. They believe that if the rightful authority is not going to stand up for what they believe is right, then it is up to them to take the necessary actions themselves, and damn the consequences.

Roeder killed Tiller because it furthered his ideals. He believed those ideals were more important than Tiller's life, and religion played a large part in his reasoning. He believed that since the rightful authority was not going to stand up for what he believed was right, then it was up to him to take the necessary actions himself, and damn the consequences.

Face it, Roeder's attack was terrorism. It might not be the kind of terrorism that we're used to, but that's what it was.
 
Winnb said:
No I'm not. If a person believes abortion is murder, and I have heard many people on the pro-life side make that very claim, then those people should be doing everything in their power to stop those murders.

I don't know how else to explain it.

The laws of the US allow a person to commit justifiable homicide. Self defense falls under those laws.

If there were a person on my street going around killing babies and the police or government refused to do anything to stop him, then I would.
Click to expand...

And here's where your idea breaks down - your hypothetical individual would have to apply laws selectively for it to work.

If he believes that abortionists are murderers but believes in the bible as law, then he cannot kill the guy in cold blood.

If he believes that abortionists are murderers but follows the state's law, then self defense would be justified in order to prevent homicide, as defined by the state, which does not include abortion.

Either way, there is no justification for doing what you claim.

Winnb said:
No not at all. Because I don't know where those murderers are. I suppose I could randomly ride around and hope I stumble upon one. The odds of that seem pretty slim though don't you think?
Click to expand...

Right now, there are millions of people around the world starving to death. If you sold all non-essential items in your life and moved into a tiny apartment, you could send enough money overseas to save dozens of lives. Because you haven't done that yet, I can only conclude that you're "pro-tiny-children-starving-to-death."

Does that make sense to you?
 
Jerry said:
What's sick is skirting the law to perform very late term abortions, not discussing a murder on a forum.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind though that not all late-term abortions skirt the law. Tiller did a lot of late-term abortions because the mother's life was in jeopardy, and no doubt saved dozens of lives during his years there. It's short-sighted to try to make him out to be nothing but a monster. Regardless of your views on abortion, I think you have to try to recognize that he did some good.
 
molten_dragon said:
Keep in mind though that not all late-term abortions skirt the law. Tiller did a lot of late-term abortions because the mother's life was in jeopardy, and no doubt saved dozens of lives during his years there. It's short-sighted to try to make him out to be nothing but a monster. Regardless of your views on abortion, I think you have to try to recognize that he did some good.
Click to expand...

If you perform even one shady very late term abortion, assault a single infant, or rape even one child, I'll applaud your death.

That one act crosses out all the good you've ever don in your life.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
And here's where your idea breaks down - your hypothetical individual would have to apply laws selectively for it to work.

If he believes that abortionists are murderers but believes in the bible as law, then he cannot kill the guy in cold blood.

If he believes that abortionists are murderers but follows the state's law, then self defense would be justified in order to prevent homicide, as defined by the state, which does not include abortion.

Either way, there is no justification for doing what you claim.
Click to expand...

There is a justification, it's called justifiable homicide. The bible is irrelevant. If Roeder believed Doctor Tiller was murdering babies then Roeder was perfectly justified to kill Doctor Tiller. Your explanation only works if you don't believe abortion is murder. If a pro-lifer truly believes abortion is murder then they must believe the killing of abortion doctors is justified.

The pro-lifers can't have it both ways. They don't get to call abortion doctors "Baby killers" and "murderers" and then stand on the sidelines and do nothing but hold up signs or write their Congressman.

If someone were planning to kill my child I would put a bullet right between their eyes. Consequences be damned. The bible be damned. And the law be damned. I would defend a life with deadly force.


Right now, there are millions of people around the world starving to death. If you sold all non-essential items in your life and moved into a tiny apartment, you could send enough money overseas to save dozens of lives. Because you haven't done that yet, I can only conclude that you're "pro-tiny-children-starving-to-death."

Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...

No it does not. You're comparing abortion, a perfectly legal procedure performed by a physician, to world hunger. The enormity of scale alone makes that comparison impossible for me to defend.

So again, my only point - Pro-lifers call abortion doctors "murderers" and then refuse, out of fear I assume, to act to stop those "murderers" from committing their crimes. Until pro-lifers are willing to stand up and do what is necessary in defense of babies I can only draw one of two conclusions:

1. Pro-lifers don't really believe abortion doctors are murderers. Calling them murderers and baby killers is just their way of denigrating doctors and the women who seek abortions. It's all hyperbole.

Or...

2. Pro-lifers are cowards who refuse to act on their belief that babies are being killed.

So which is it?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If you perform even one shady very late term abortion, assault a single infant, or rape even one child, I'll applaud your death.

That one act crosses out all the good you've ever don in your life.
Click to expand...

How would you define a "shady" late term abortion? What's "shady" got to do with it?
 
Winnb said:
There is a justification, it's called justifiable homicide. The bible is irrelevant. If Roeder believed Doctor Tiller was murdering babies then Roeder was perfectly justified to kill Doctor Tiller. Your explanation only works if you don't believe abortion is murder. If a pro-lifer truly believes abortion is murder then they must believe the killing of abortion doctors is justified.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point.

Justifiable homicide is a doctrine created by the state. It works in conjunction with state laws. You don't get to apply the state doctrine to whatever your personal beliefs hold is wrong.

If you follow the bible as law (and assuming that the bible calls this murder), then you are not permitted to kill this guy.

If you follow the state as law, then you are still not permitted to kill this guy, because the doctrine of justifiable homicide only applies where the state considers something homicide.

You're criticizing your hypothetical person for not being a hypocrite, which I think is different from the point you were trying to make.

If someone were planning to kill my child I would put a bullet right between their eyes. Consequences be damned. The bible be damned. And the law be damned. I would defend a life with deadly force.
Click to expand...

Which is justifiable homicide. You're not proving anything that's not already been said.

No it does not. You're comparing abortion, a perfectly legal procedure performed by a physician, to world hunger. The enormity of scale alone makes that comparison impossible for me to defend.
Click to expand...

No, they're quite comparable - you don't get to dodge that easily.

They are both two things that are happening without any input from you. By doing nothing, you allow them to occur. Much like the hypothetical person you're talking about thinks abortion is wrong, I'm sure that you think allowing babies to starve to death is wrong. Much like you're calling that person a hypocrite for doing nothing to stop it, I'm pointing out that you could be seen as a hypocrite for doing the same.

So, to use your own rhetoric:

1) Is it that you don't actually care about babies starving to death overseas, and just like to pretend that you do so that other people think you're nice, or

2) Is it that you do care, but you're too much of a coward to actually give up all the niceties in your life to ease their suffering?
 
Winnb said:
How would you define a "shady" late term abortion? What's "shady" got to do with it?
Click to expand...

The legality of many of Dr. Tiller's abortions are in question because he was paying another doctor to sign off on them as the second consult. He used the same doctor for most of the abortions, and the doctor received pay each time for his second opinion. Also, that opinion was not substantiated by any verifiable or documented diagnostic criteria.

Dr Tiller was paying someone for their signature. He was not using the other doctor as a legitimate part of the process.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
You've missed the point.

Justifiable homicide is a doctrine created by the state. It works in conjunction with state laws. You don't get to apply the state doctrine to whatever your personal beliefs hold is wrong.

If you follow the bible as law (and assuming that the bible calls this murder), then you are not permitted to kill this guy.

If you follow the state as law, then you are still not permitted to kill this guy, because the doctrine of justifiable homicide only applies where the state considers something homicide.

You're criticizing your hypothetical person for not being a hypocrite, which I think is different from the point you were trying to make.
Click to expand...

The people I'm talking about are not hypothetical. I can attend any pro-life rally and hear the phrase "baby killer" and "murderer" over and over again. I can see their signs with pictures on them with dead and mutilated fetuses which the pro-lifers believe are murdered babies.

That's not a hypothetical. Those people either believe an abortion doctor is a murderer or they don't. I'm simply asking the question - which is it?

No, they're quite comparable - you don't get to dodge that easily.
Click to expand...

They are in no way comparable. World hunger and abortion? No. They're not even in the same ball park. Here's why:

I am not in any way trying to stop others from feeding hungry people. I'm not trying to legislate the actions of others regarding world hunger nor am I interested in increasing or decreasing the efforts of others regarding world hunger.

The same cannot be said of pro-lifers. They have a vested interest in stopping abortion. I'm simply trying to clarify exactly why they don't do more to stop it? You seem to be trying to paint me with hypocrisy, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. Whether I'm a terrible person or a saint has no bearing on pro-lifers either killing or not killing abortion doctors. That is the topic at hand. Not the level of my philanthropy.


I notice you didn't answer my question. So I will put it to anyone else. Is the phrase "baby killer" hyperbole or do pro-lifers really believe it when they say it?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The legality of many of Dr. Tiller's abortions are in question because he was paying another doctor to sign off on them as the second consult. He used the same doctor for most of the abortions, and the doctor received pay each time for his second opinion. Also, that opinion was not substantiated by any verifiable or documented diagnostic criteria.

Dr Tiller was paying someone for their signature. He was not using the other doctor as a legitimate part of the process.
Click to expand...

Was that illegal? Was that a violation of the AMA code of Ethics? Was that something he could lose his medical license for?
 
Winnb said:
Was that illegal? Was that a violation of the AMA code of Ethics? Was that something he could lose his medical license for?
Click to expand...

It is something he could have lost his license for and have gon to prison over, yes. I believe it's a class 5 felony.
 
Winnb said:
The people I'm talking about are not hypothetical. I can attend any pro-life rally and hear the phrase "baby killer" and "murderer" over and over again. I can see their signs with pictures on them with dead and mutilated fetuses which the pro-lifers believe are murdered babies.

That's not a hypothetical. Those people either believe an abortion doctor is a murderer or they don't. I'm simply asking the question - which is it?
Click to expand...

Once again, you've missed the point. It's not about whether these people are hypothetical or not, it's about the fact that you're relying on faulty reasoning.

You came up with your example, thinking that it would prove that if people believe abortionists are murderers, they should either kill abortionists or they're cowards. As I explained, that doesn't make any sense, because anyone who truly followed one or the other sets of laws would not kill said abortionist. You still refuse to acknowledge that and keep asking your question as if it has any relevance.

They are in no way comparable. World hunger and abortion? No. They're not even in the same ball park. Here's why:

I am not in any way trying to stop others from feeding hungry people. I'm not trying to legislate the actions of others regarding world hunger nor am I interested in increasing or decreasing the efforts of others regarding world hunger.
Click to expand...

You're not interested in easing world hunger? You don't think it would be a good thing to help starving babies, and would oppose legislative proposals to allocate money to help said babies? You don't raise money for anything or encourage others to donate?

The same cannot be said of pro-lifers. They have a vested interest in stopping abortion. I'm simply trying to clarify exactly why they don't do more to stop it?
Click to expand...

I already explained this - because under either set of assumptions, they'd arrive at the same place the majority of them are already at.

You seem to be trying to paint me with hypocrisy, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. Whether I'm a terrible person or a saint has no bearing on pro-lifers either killing or not killing abortion doctors. That is the topic at hand. Not the level of my philanthropy.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to paint you with anything. I'm using an example to point out the flaws in your question.

The idea that if you support something, you must go to the extremes in supporting it, is absurd.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
The idea that if you support something, you must go to the extremes in supporting it, is absurd.
Click to expand...

The I simply disagree. When the "something" consists of babies being murdered how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?

Either abortion doctors are murderers or they are not? Which is it?
 
Winnb said:
The I simply disagree. When the "something" consists of babies being murdered how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?
Click to expand...

And when the "something" consists of babies starving to death, how can one not go to an extreme to stop it?

Either abortion doctors are murderers or they are not? Which is it?
Click to expand...

I don't think they are, but I'm sure that's not your point.
 
Jerry said:
It is something he could have lost his license for and have gon to prison over, yes. I believe it's a class 5 felony.
Click to expand...

Ah, so he was never convicted of anything. And since Mr. Roeder took matters into his own hands and murdered Doctor Tiller we'll never know.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't think they are, but I'm sure that's not your point.
Click to expand...

Actually that is my point. If abortion doctors are not murderers then why shouldn't abortions remain legal? Which means our abortion laws should not be changed and Roe versus Wade was the correct decision.

But if abortion doctors are murderers then all of us should be doing everything in our power to stop them from killing again.
 
Winnb said:
Ah, so he was never convicted of anything. And since Mr. Roeder took matters into his own hands and murdered Doctor Tiller we'll never know.
Click to expand...

The fact that Dr. Tiller will now never see prison is perhaps the only tragedy to come of all this.

Although, the fact that he can no longer buy signatures to perform questionable abortions softens the disappointment. It would suck if Dr. Tiller were only wounded, healed and returned to his practice.
 
Why would Dr. Tiller see prison? Was he being investigated for some type of criminal activity? It's not illegal to be a Dr. and last I checked abortion is still quite legal. Which makes sense, a pregnant woman of 8 1/2 months could easily make the choice to step in front of a speeding train ending her life and that of the unborn. If a woman is really hell bent on not giving birth, abortion legal or not, it isn't going to interfere with that.
 
TheDude said:
Why would Dr. Tiller see prison?
Click to expand...

In recent years Dr. Tiller was investigated and charged a few times. There was one such investigation underway when he died.

TheDude said:
Was he being investigated for some type of criminal activity?
Click to expand...

Illegally performing abortions, yes.

TheDude said:
It's not illegal to be a Dr. and last I checked,
Click to expand...

He wasn't being investigated for being a doctor, he was being investigated for performing illegal procedures.

TheDude said:
...abortion is still quite legal.
Click to expand...

Within specific guidelines, yes. Dr.Tiller was skirting those guidelines, hence the investigations.

TheDude said:
Which makes sense, a pregnant woman of 8 1/2 months could easily make the choice to step in front of a speeding train ending her life and that of the unborn.
Click to expand...

Good example, as that's also illegal. Even if she dies the woman's estate stands to pay for any damages inured by her act.

TheDude said:
If a woman is really hell bent on not giving birth, abortion legal or not, it isn't going to interfere with that.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time sympathizing with emos. An 8 1/2 month pregnant woman had a lot of time and advanced knowledge to abort.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
What's sick is skirting the law to perform very late term abortions, not discussing a murder on a forum.

My boss recently fired 2 guys who turned out to be registered sex offenders. Neither one of them were legally required to tell their employer any more, but the boss lady didn't want folks like that around.

Since she didn't have "good cause" to terminate them, she knew that she would have to accept paying them workman's comp if she terminated them.

She chose to pay the workman's comp and send them packing. She knew the consequences of her decision when she made it, and she doesn't cry about the additional over head.

Scott Roeder does not appear to be a psychopathic loon acting impulsively. In fact everything about this story leads me to believe this is an issue he thought long and hard about. The court would seem to agree with this in it's conviction, that he knew what he was doing well in advance.

He weighed his options and accepted the consequences of his choice. The left likes choice, right? Well, he made his.

If you don't like abortion doctors being assassinated, don't kill one. I don't because I don't want the personal consequences. Apparently folks like Scott Roeder are willing to take those consequences.

Also, if you don't want people gunning you down in church, don't skirt the law to perform very late term abortion. I hope every other late term abortion doctor takes this incident as a sign to stay well within the law.
Click to expand...

Workman's comp is insurance to pay your employees if they are injured on the job. There were no injuries in your case. If she fires the 2 employees and they filed for unemployment compensation the state would increase her quarterly rate. That's what she is worried about.
 
TheDude said:
Why would Dr. Tiller see prison? Was he being investigated for some type of criminal activity? It's not illegal to be a Dr. and last I checked abortion is still quite legal. Which makes sense, a pregnant woman of 8 1/2 months could easily make the choice to step in front of a speeding train ending her life and that of the unborn. If a woman is really hell bent on not giving birth, abortion legal or not, it isn't going to interfere with that.
Click to expand...
Read and learn:
WICHITA, Kan. — After years of investigations and four days of testimony, jurors here took just 45 minutes on Friday to acquit a controversial abortion doctor of charges that he performed 19 illegal late-term abortions in 2003.

[...]

The trial is not the end of Dr. Tiller’s legal problems. The state Board of Healing Arts is investigating a complaint that mirrors the accusations made in the trial.
Click to expand...
TheDude said:
If a woman is really hell bent on not giving birth, abortion legal or not, it isn't going to interfere with that.
Click to expand...
Well hell, I guess we don't really need laws about murder, do we? It didn't stop Roeder, did it? :roll:
 
sazerac said:
Workman's comp is insurance to pay your employees if they are injured on the job. There were no injuries in your case. If she fires the 2 employees and they filed for unemployment compensation the state would increase her quarterly rate. That's what she is worried about.
Click to expand...

If your only retort is to correct my reference, then sure, but that doesn't address my argument one way or the other.

You're basically just proof reading my post.
 
Jerry said:
If your only retort is to correct my reference, then sure, but that doesn't address my argument one way or the other.

You're basically just proof reading my post.
Click to expand...

My retort is that, despite my affection for you, you are way off base in your assessments of what is justice and what is not.

If you would like to explore these things with me, I would be deeply appreciative of your attention. But if you spurn my advocact against your intellectual consistency, I would be only mildly offended that you didn't take me up on the challenge.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
My retort is that, despite my affection for you, you are way off base in your assessments of what is justice and what is not.

If you would like to explore these things with me, I would be deeply appreciative of your attention. But if you spurn my advocact against your intellectual consistency, I would be only mildly offended that you didn't take me up on the challenge.
Click to expand...

There are a few things I am personally willing to murder over.

For example, if a drunk killed my children and got anything less than life in prison without parole, I would kill that person. I would do it with the knowledge that I would spend the rest of my life in prison.

I would call it in myself, perhaps even just before hand. I would do it with the understanding that my life is over from that moment on, and I admit suicide might seem to be a good alternative at that point.

I would safe the gun and place it away from me before the police showed up. I would surrender, offering no resistance. I would plea 'no contest' to the ensuing charges.

If publicity were high enough, I would offer an exclusive interview to the highest bidder, with payment going to an anti drunk driving or children's hospital charity (because I wouldn't be able to be paid for the interview myself).

I say this so that you understand that generally speaking, my bottom line agrees with the basic idea of taking matters into one's own hands when the trusted authorities fail time and again. If our exchange would be an attempt to change my view, then I'm simply saving you time and effort.

Exhaust all legal options first, and try to find piece in those results, but when the law fails time and again there comes a point where the individual needs to act.
 
Jerry said:
There are a few things I am personally willing to murder over.

For example, if a drunk killed my children and got anything less than life in prison without parole, I would kill that person. I would do it with the knowledge that I would spend the rest of my life in prison.
Click to expand...

Then you would act irrationally in the defense of your children. I respect that and actually admire that. But let's not call it anything other than what it is.

I would call it in myself, perhaps even just before hand. I would do it with the understanding that my life is over from that moment on, and I admit suicide might seem to be a good alternative at that point.
Click to expand...

Then your children should count themselves fortunate that they have a father so committed to them as you. Irrational as that is, I respect it.

I would safe the gun and place it away from me before the police showed up. I would surrender, offering no resistance. I would plea 'no contest' to the ensuing charges.
Click to expand...

Then you would be teaching your children that despite your irrational response, that there should always be an adherence to justice. And I can respect that, too, despite cheering on your commitment to true and pure eye for an eye justice.


If publicity were high enough, I would offer an exclusive interview to the highest bidder, with payment going to an anti drunk driving or children's hospital charity (because I wouldn't be able to be paid for the interview myself).
Click to expand...

That's your right...to get your story out there and appeal to the will of the public for a sense of justice. I, personally, would revoke such an appeal based on the sole fact that it was tainted from the onset, but that would be your right all the same.

I say this so that you understand that generally speaking, my bottom line agrees with the basic idea of taking matters into one's own hands when the trusted authorities fail time and again.
Click to expand...

We cannot agree here. I would hang you with the same zeal that I would hang Batman or Superman. Our society is built on the concept that we make our rules and boundaries based on a pure and wholesome sense of a congregate philosophy of morality and ethics that is wrought by a representative government that has an inherent nod to every man by the sanctity of our vote. I'm sorry; I deeply respect and love your passion but I cannot respect and love your blatant disrespect for your fellow citizen. While I might silently pray for your soul, I would never openly agree with your actions.

If our exchange would be an attempt to change my view, then I'm simply saving you time and effort.
Click to expand...

That's fine. You know me, and I think I know you well enought that I am safe from your passions and you are safe from my indignation at your affront to civility. We are friends here on this forum and in other contacts. Friends don't have to agree on all fronts. Enough said.

Exhaust all legal options first, and try to find piece in those results, but when the law fails time and again there comes a point where the individual needs to act.
Click to expand...

We disagree here and this is a point of contention that leads us to conflict. I would prefer that I know your stance and you know mine and we move on from there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom