Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Dr" Tiller Murdered

Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you can call him a doctor, anyhow Mr. Tiller, one of the biggest late term abortion surgeons was shot in the head.

The man who killed him (Roeder) is looking at life in prison, but how should he be looked at by pro life folk?

I am hugely against abortions, and to me when i heard this i will reluctantly admit i smiled a bit, should he be respected? Or looked down upon because he did what he did in the wrong way?

To me, i have to respect the guy, he did what he must because the government did not do anything about this clinic. He stood up for what he believes in by taking action that made an impact.

I am looking for other opinions

Act of undeserved murder? Act of Righteousness in a sense?
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:04:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Regardless of your views, murder is murder.

The murderer deprived Dr. Tiller's family, his community and the damn church of his presence. It was involuntary on Dr. Tiller's part, unlike the abortions he provided, which were fully voluntary. No one forced women to have abortions, but the murderer forced everyone to live without this man's presence. He deserves every punishment he gets.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:07:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

This is why the morality of the Christian God is retarded. Instead of trying to fix the problem, you simply murder the person. "You disobeyed me? Now will you die a painful death and spend eternity in hell."

I think the man who shot the doctor performed the most hypocritical act of all time. He is against killing, yet kills someone to fix the problem.

I can't believe you stick up for this guy on the account he stood up for what he believed in. He believed in some dumb a** s*** apparently. You call that morality? His self righteousness is pathetic.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
An honest pro-lifer will say that the murder of Tiller was just. He's quite literally, according to pro-life views, a mass murderer who we know planned to continue killing people. The legal system failed to convict him of anything, so someone decided to end his killing spree.

The only argument I've heard from pro-life apologists is "his murderer shouldn't have tried to play God," which is interesting because so many pro-lifers are also pro-capital punishment.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:09:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:07:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the man who shot the doctor performed the most hypocritical act of all time. He is against killing, yet kills someone to fix the problem.
With life as the highest value, his actions made sense. You don't have to make a moral absolute like "NEVER KILL," since that will sometimes conflict with your values (for instance, killing one person to save hundreds or thousands of others as the guy thought he was doing).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:09:32 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:07:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the man who shot the doctor performed the most hypocritical act of all time. He is against killing, yet kills someone to fix the problem.
With life as the highest value, his actions made sense. You don't have to make a moral absolute like "NEVER KILL," since that will sometimes conflict with your values (for instance, killing one person to save hundreds or thousands of others as the guy thought he was doing).

You can't be serious. I think a simple straight jacket would suffice. You don't have to kill to stop the killing. Send the person to a therapist, solve it diplomatically, there's always something better.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:16:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:09:32 PM, beem0r wrote:
With life as the highest value, his actions made sense. You don't have to make a moral absolute like "NEVER KILL," since that will sometimes conflict with your values (for instance, killing one person to save hundreds or thousands of others as the guy thought he was doing).

Thou shalt not kill.

That is a moral absolute that these fanatical Christians should abide by, otherwise they're not really Christians, are they.

Again, let us note. Dr. Tiller's death was involuntary. The abortions Dr. Tiller performed were voluntary. Why do abortion activists attack the doctors that only provide a service?
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:41:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And about the many babies minutes away from being born being killed, voluntary for them?
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:48:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:41:11 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
And about the many babies minutes away from being born being killed, voluntary for them?

Fetuses do not have cognitive thought and they are dependent upon the mother's body - the mother has a right to do what she wants with her body or anything that lives off her body.

Furthermore, when the mother's life is in danger, an abortion must be performed. Why sacrifice one life that is already fully developed, fully cognate and has years upon years of experience and social relationships for another that threatens such a life?

But this isn't the point I was trying to make. A person cannot murder a murderer, unless it is in self-defense. The killer of Dr. Tiller was not acting in self-defense, he committed a cold-blooded murder in a church. There is no way to get around this, and no amount of fanatical belief changes that.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:56:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:09:32 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:07:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the man who shot the doctor performed the most hypocritical act of all time. He is against killing, yet kills someone to fix the problem.
With life as the highest value, his actions made sense. You don't have to make a moral absolute like "NEVER KILL," since that will sometimes conflict with your values (for instance, killing one person to save hundreds or thousands of others as the guy thought he was doing).

You can't be serious. I think a simple straight jacket would suffice. You don't have to kill to stop the killing. Send the person to a therapist, solve it diplomatically, there's always something better.

BREAKING NEWS: MAN WALKS INTO A CHURCH AND PUTS ABORTIONIST INTO A STRAIGHT JACKET AND ILLEGALLY BRINGS HIM TO AN INSANE ASYLUM, GETS LAUGHED AND THROWN IN JAIL.

The legal system already tried the man and found no problem with what he was doing. Only vigilates would have what it takes to stop him, and there's not much else a vigilante can do to permanently end those actions.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If I held that there was a valid reason to oppose abortions, i.e., that fetuses had any rights, I would be fine with this killing.

But I don't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:01:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:58:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I held that there was a valid reason to oppose abortions, i.e., that fetuses had any rights, I would be fine with this killing.

But I don't.

For once I completely agree with you.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:02:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To actually have respect for the man who killed Dr. Tiller and find some kind of satisfaction from his act is pretty disturbing, but not unexpected given enough religious indoctrination. Still, this isn't exactly killing baby Hitler; murdering doctors who perform abortions does not end the practice and shines a heinous light on those who would support such misguided deeds.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:07:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:02:08 PM, Maikuru wrote:
To actually have respect for the man who killed Dr. Tiller and find some kind of satisfaction from his act is pretty disturbing, but not unexpected given enough religious indoctrination. Still, this isn't exactly killing baby Hitler; murdering doctors who perform abortions does not end the practice and shines a heinous light on those who would support such misguided deeds.

He was one of the very few doctors in the nation who provide late term abortions, so it does send a signal to those considering doing the same and it takes out a chunk of the supply outright.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:11:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:04:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
It was involuntary on Dr. Tiller's part, unlike the abortions he provided, which were fully voluntary. No one forced women to have abortions,

Stop here. First, the women are not the people dying. So, your argument is irrelevant.
Second, the fetus is dying, and its dying was not voluntary.
I see not how you think you are being rational.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:11:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kill people with dissenting views? Sets great precedent.

Also, The Christian God supposedly says "turn the other cheek", not "eye for an eye."

alex_hanson911 and beem0r... you make me sick.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:31:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:11:44 PM, Nags wrote:
Kill people with dissenting views? Sets great precedent.

Also, The Christian God supposedly says "turn the other cheek", not "eye for an eye."

alex_hanson911 and beem0r... you make me sick.

Actually, I think the Christian God says "eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek." Just goes to show how contradictory beliefs are.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:34:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:07:57 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 6/2/2009 3:02:08 PM, Maikuru wrote:
To actually have respect for the man who killed Dr. Tiller and find some kind of satisfaction from his act is pretty disturbing, but not unexpected given enough religious indoctrination. Still, this isn't exactly killing baby Hitler; murdering doctors who perform abortions does not end the practice and shines a heinous light on those who would support such misguided deeds.

He was one of the very few doctors in the nation who provide late term abortions, so it does send a signal to those considering doing the same and it takes out a chunk of the supply outright.

Naturally, but the legality of the act stands. Are you aware of any area that has actually altered its abortion practices following similar acts of violence?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:36:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 1:53:17 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
If you can call him a doctor, anyhow Mr. Tiller, one of the biggest late term abortion surgeons was shot in the head.

The man who killed him (Roeder) is looking at life in prison, but how should he be looked at by pro life folk?

I am hugely against abortions, and to me when i heard this i will reluctantly admit i smiled a bit, should he be respected? Or looked down upon because he did what he did in the wrong way?

To me, i have to respect the guy, he did what he must because the government did not do anything about this clinic. He stood up for what he believes in by taking action that made an impact.

I am looking for other opinions

Act of undeserved murder? Act of Righteousness in a sense?

Undeserved murder. If a person wants to take a stand for something, that person should show some backbone and take the hard path to political reform. Brutal thuggery is easy for any nitwit to engage in. Someone who actually has a point to make can probably express that point well enough to make it to others without the need to resort to violence.

Additionally, this killing did nothing to end late term abortion, will lead to the killer's incarceration or death, and reduced the number of practicing medical professionals in the Unites States to an even smaller number. Pointless waste.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:37:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 2:56:53 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:09:32 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 6/2/2009 2:07:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the man who shot the doctor performed the most hypocritical act of all time. He is against killing, yet kills someone to fix the problem.
With life as the highest value, his actions made sense. You don't have to make a moral absolute like "NEVER KILL," since that will sometimes conflict with your values (for instance, killing one person to save hundreds or thousands of others as the guy thought he was doing).

You can't be serious. I think a simple straight jacket would suffice. You don't have to kill to stop the killing. Send the person to a therapist, solve it diplomatically, there's always something better.


BREAKING NEWS: MAN WALKS INTO A CHURCH AND PUTS ABORTIONIST INTO A STRAIGHT JACKET AND ILLEGALLY BRINGS HIM TO AN INSANE ASYLUM, GETS LAUGHED AND THROWN IN JAIL.:

ROFLMFAO!

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:52:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The saying goes that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; so, even if the murderer intended to save as many lives as possible, it doesn't excuse the fact that yet another human life was extinguished; as much consideration should have been given to allowing the doctor to live as allowing the fetuses to be born.

Also, I don't see why killing the doctor is seen as acceptable in some pro-life circles. I wonder why it is acceptable to kill the doctor who performs the abortion, but no one goes after the mother, who allows her child to be aborted in the first place? There are all kinds of contradictions.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 4:00:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:52:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The saying goes that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; so, even if the murderer intended to save as many lives as possible, it doesn't excuse the fact that yet another human life was extinguished; as much consideration should have been given to allowing the doctor to live as allowing the fetuses to be born.

Choice 1: Kill doctor, save many fetuses.
Choice 2: Don't kill doctor, or wait for acceptable legal change to happen, many fetuses die in the meantime as a result.

Choice between one death of a "guilty" man and multiple deaths of innocents. The reverence for life that drives the pro-life movement dictates choice 1 as superior.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:11:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop here. First, the women are not the people dying. So, your argument is irrelevant.
Second, the fetus is dying, and its dying was not voluntary.
I see not how you think you are being rational.

How is killing a man who only performed a service rational? How is saying the fetus - apart of the woman's body and therefore hers to choose what to do with - rational?

Pot calling the kettle black.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 4:02:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 4:00:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/2/2009 3:11:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop here. First, the women are not the people dying. So, your argument is irrelevant.
Second, the fetus is dying, and its dying was not voluntary.
I see not how you think you are being rational.

How is killing a man who only performed a service rational? How is saying the fetus - apart of the woman's body and therefore hers to choose what to do with - has rights* rational?

Pot calling the kettle black.

Deleted too much by accident.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 4:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 4:00:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/2/2009 3:11:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop here. First, the women are not the people dying. So, your argument is irrelevant.
Second, the fetus is dying, and its dying was not voluntary.
I see not how you think you are being rational.

How is killing a man who only performed a service rational? How is saying the fetus - apart of the woman's body and therefore hers to choose what to do with - rational?

Pot calling the kettle black.

I do not endorse the killing of this doctor.
Rationality:
The fetus is not hers to do with because if she doesn't do something to it, then it lives and if she does then it never does. Choosing between life and death is not a power one can exert on another.
In the same manner, we cannot kill our wives or children.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 4:55:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 4:50:31 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/2/2009 4:00:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/2/2009 3:11:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop here. First, the women are not the people dying. So, your argument is irrelevant.
Second, the fetus is dying, and its dying was not voluntary.
I see not how you think you are being rational.

How is killing a man who only performed a service rational? How is saying the fetus - apart of the woman's body and therefore hers to choose what to do with - rational?

Pot calling the kettle black.

I do not endorse the killing of this doctor.
Rationality:
The fetus is not hers to do with because if she doesn't do something to it, then it lives and if she does then it never does. Choosing between life and death is not a power one can exert on another.
In the same manner, we cannot kill our wives or children.

Lol, if that were not a power we could do, then no one would be able to do it. If you're assuming by a moral standard, lets remember that there is many other standards of morality other than your own.

The fetus is hers to do something with because it is dependent on her body for its life. If it endangers her life, it must go. If she does not want it, she has the right to choose not to have it. She has the right not to allow the fetus to depend upon her body for its life anymore. Just like a woman has the right not to be used by a man for things she doesn't consent to, a woman has the right not to be used as a vehicle for something she doesn't want. Plain and simple.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 5:05:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The fetus is hers to do something with because it is dependent on her body for its life.
I follow you.
If it endangers her life, it must go.
Agreed.
If she does not want it, she has the right to choose not to have it.
Though again, I still don't think they had that choice and favour the moral argument that she cannot decide whether or not it lives.
She has the right not to allow the fetus to depend upon her body for its life anymore.
I can understand your logic though.

(stupid analogy comparing divorce to abortion)
The proper analogy would be giving women the right to kill their husbands to end marriage.
Divorce isn't practical for women and fetusses.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 5:06:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 5:05:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
(stupid analogy comparing divorce to abortion)
The proper analogy would be giving women the right to kill their husbands to end marriage.
Divorce isn't practical for women and fetusses.

Rape, not divorce. I should have clarified that.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 8:22:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I just wanted to make a quick point here.

Those that start condoning this murderer are only bringing our country closer to the state of Afghanistan.

Have your views, hate those that do it, protest and let your voice be heard - but do not condone those that use violence, murder and terrorism to further their goals. By condoning the violence, you are no better than those you hate.

Fight terrorism, don't support it.