"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

Pro abortion leaders aren't being very honest about how pro life people acted

http://www.lifenews.com/state4188.html

It seems like the pro abortion group is acting like mean spirited demagogues. They're going to try to paint everybody who stood up to Tiller as a hater. They seem to forget that Tiller probably broke every law in the book in his years as a Dr.

And I did hate what Tiller did. There shouldn't be any shame in hating Tillers actions. He ignored the law and performed abortions that were not legal. He should have been put in jail. If his jury had convicted him he would be alive today.
 
sugarb said:
Your implication that "Christians" condone murdering abortionists is just as pathetic as "Christians" implying that those supporting the right to abortion condone killing babies.

Some people are nutjobs. That's all there is to it. Nutjobs can claim to be anything...but they're just nutjobs.
Click to expand...

I'm going only on fuzzy memory here, but when there was a spate of abortion doctor murders in the 90s, wasn't it discovered that some more radical elements in the "pro-life" movement were involved in actually aiding & abedding (sp?) those killers?

I seem to recall that Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry got into some hot water for such actions.
 
skepticalbeliever said:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4188.html

It seems like the pro abortion group is acting like mean spirited demagogues. They're going to try to paint everybody who stood up to Tiller as a hater. They seem to forget that Tiller probably broke every law in the book in his years as a Dr.
And I did hate what Tiller did. There shouldn't be any shame in hating Tillers actions. He ignored the law and performed abortions that were not legal. He should have been put in jail. If his jury had convicted him he would be alive today.
Click to expand...

You do realize those two statements are a contradiction, don't you?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Can't say I've seen many Atheists throwing acid into the faces of schoolgirls or murdering abortion doctors in the name of Atheism.
Click to expand...

For that matter, when was the last time a "pro-choicer" killed someone who was against abortion because the "pro-lifers" didn't want it legalized?

Btw, I hate the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels, but we're stuck with them.
 
skepticalbeliever said:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4188.html

It seems like the pro abortion group is acting like mean spirited demagogues. They're going to try to paint everybody who stood up to Tiller as a hater. They seem to forget that Tiller probably broke every law in the book in his years as a Dr.

And I did hate what Tiller did. There shouldn't be any shame in hating Tillers actions. He ignored the law and performed abortions that were not legal. He should have been put in jail. If his jury had convicted him he would be alive today.
Click to expand...
If his jury had convicted him, it would have indicated that he actually broke the law.
As it was, they deliberated less than an hour and returned "Not guilty".
That means that the State couldn't convince a jury that he broke the law.
 
Skeptic said:
I am against abortion of convenience. I am against abortion as birth control. I am not against abortion in all circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, to save the mother, etc.)
Click to expand...

Problem is, convenience is in the eye of the beholder. A pregnant teenage daughter will make the most anti reproductive rights person very quick to say that their situation is special.

And what makes it OK to kill a fetus that is the product of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? That is not an internally consistent belief.

If you make abortion available on demand, women don't drink poison to induce a miscarriage, and doctors aren't afraid that if they treat a woman who has miscarried that they will be arrested, as is the current case in Nicaragua. Anti abortion laws put the health of women at risk, except for those wealthy or well connected enough to travel to where it is legal.

Good sex ed means that there will be fewer abortions, so a combination of both makes for an optimal situation.

Skeptic said:
I think the Jewish sages got it right: the fetus is a person who has rights, but it does not have equal rights to the mother. I also agree with them that a fertilized egg or a zygote, for instance, is not yet a fetus and does not yet have rights -- they didn't know about eggs or zygotes, of course, but they realized the fetus develops gradually and does not have rights from the moment of conception.

The ancient sages declared the fetus, even the fully developed fetus, to be a rodef -- one who pursues with intent to kill -- that is, someone who it is permissible to kill if necessary, although not if there are other ways to stop him from hurting the other person. Unlike the catholic church, the rabbis allowed the killing of a fetus to save the mother's life or to save her from serious harm.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the detail that made a fetus a person is the quickening. Once the woman feels the fetus moving, its a person, according to the old Hebrew laws. Before that, if a woman was assaulted, if she miscarried, it was just assault. That puts Hebrew law in agreement with second trimester as a limit on most abortions.
 
linusrichard said:
Let's say you knew a fellow in your neighborhood who would go to the mall or a school or something every weekday with a gun, and take out two or three people. Shoppers, kids, teachers, whatever. Just shoot and kill them. Just a couple a day. And let's say the local police knew about him but, for some reason, they weren't allowed to interfere with what he was doing. It was perfectly legal, for some reason. I don't know why, just make something up.

Now, I believe murder is wrong. But do you think I wouldn't take this malefactor out at the earliest opportunity? Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you be willing to go to prison for the privilege, if that's what it meant? Or would you content yourself to carry signs and vote for politicians who also disapproved (ineffectually) of this guy's little killing sprees?
"Oh but that's different, that person is actually murdering people!"
Well that's what I'm saying - if you think this doctor was actually murdering people, why wouldn't you act to stop that?
Click to expand...


:) I'm sorry, I couldn't make up a reason that some guy would be allowed to shoot people at the mall...but I see what you are saying. Question is, would you take the guy out because you thought murder is wrong, even though the law said this guy could kill people and it wasn't murder? Or would you take the guy out because you felt above the law (since we're assuming this is legal, and everyone knows it is legal and still, apparently, decides to go to the mall)?

That's really what it boils down to. If morality is the issue, then exercising hypocrisy doesn't seem to be the best way of upholding some moral value.

If everyone got to choose their own definition of murder, the world would be a much scarier place. Don't you think?
 
MattusMaximus said:
I'm going only on fuzzy memory here, but when there was a spate of abortion doctor murders in the 90s, wasn't it discovered that some more radical elements in the "pro-life" movement were involved in actually aiding & abedding (sp?) those killers?

I seem to recall that Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry got into some hot water for such actions.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that's right. Fuzzy recall myself, but yeah...I wonder why these things aren't called domestic terrorism. Isn't that really what it is?
 
It very much is domestic terrorism, but Obama bowed to the far right and withdrew the report (drawn up by the Bush administration) that said that far right extremists may use abortion as an excuse for violence.
 
skepticalbeliever said:
If you want to see "Christians" condemn this, go to Operationrescue.org. When it returns, you will see that even the most conservative Christians abhor the abomination of shooting a person in church. You can see the same thing on the nrlc.org. Go to lifenews.com and see that all pro life groups condemn this murder.

I have posted about George Tiller extensively on this board. I saw this news go across the ticker on fox news and was stunned. That is the only word I can use to describe my reaction.

What happened in Ks. today was a tragedy. We live in a world where people don't respect life, we see late term abortionists abort viable babies, and we see hypocritical vigilantes kill in the name of protecting life. This shows that we need to build a culture that respects life in order to prevent this from happening in the future.
Click to expand...

So he was responsible for his own death because he was helping build a society that didn't respect life?
 
rwguinn said:
If his jury had convicted him, it would have indicated that he actually broke the law.
As it was, they deliberated less than an hour and returned "Not guilty".
That means that the State couldn't convince a jury that he broke the law.
Click to expand...

You have more faith in the american justice system than I do. Tiller is was just as "no guilty" of his crimes as OJ was. I think the jury just did a very bad job. Tiller was still under investigation by the medical boards for misconduct.
 
Robster said:
It very much is domestic terrorism, but Obama bowed to the far right and withdrew the report (drawn up by the Bush administration) that said that far right extremists may use abortion as an excuse for violence.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is terrorism. It would have been terrorism if a bomb was used and more people were hurt. People have been killing eachother over things like this for ages. Assasinating a person doesn't qualify as real terrorism in my view.

I hope the prolife movement will continue to expose the crimes of the abortion industry. This is not an excuse to stop doing that at all.
 
sugarb said:
:) I'm sorry, I couldn't make up a reason that some guy would be allowed to shoot people at the mall...but I see what you are saying. Question is, would you take the guy out because you thought murder is wrong, even though the law said this guy could kill people and it wasn't murder? Or would you take the guy out because you felt above the law (since we're assuming this is legal, and everyone knows it is legal and still, apparently, decides to go to the mall)?

That's really what it boils down to. If morality is the issue, then exercising hypocrisy doesn't seem to be the best way of upholding some moral value.

If everyone got to choose their own definition of murder, the world would be a much scarier place. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

I guess there's two ways to take that. On the one hand, yes, it would. Make no mistake, I am foursquare against what this guy did, killing the abortion doctor. I am not trying to defend it.

But if the situation I described were happening, I would commit what the law would consider "murder" (to me, justifiable homicide) in order to prevent what the law considered "not murder" (to me, murder). Which I guess brings me to the second way to take your question, which is to say that, in reality everyone does get to choose their own definition of murder, which is one reason the world is such a scary place. Except that most people have pretty much agreed on the same definition, and most of those who haven't agreed will at least behave as if they do.

I just can't wrap my mind around someone truly believing a fetus is a person and not doing everything within their power to avert their mass slaughter. The fact that most pro-lifers don't go to extremes tells me that they don't believe their own baloney - that they don't actually believe a fetus is a person.
 
skepticalbeliever said:
I don't think this is terrorism. It would have been terrorism if a bomb was used and more people were hurt. People have been killing eachother over things like this for ages. Assasinating a person doesn't qualify as real terrorism in my view.

I hope the prolife movement will continue to expose the crimes of the abortion industry. This is not an excuse to stop doing that at all.
Click to expand...

So its only terrorism if its a bomb? Well, thats convenient. For you.

It was meant to terrorize a profession and the community that he belonged to. Thats terrorism.
 
Not primarily. Tiller himself was the target to prevent his actions. An assassination is not necessarily terrorism.

Terrorism more or less targets random people to intimidate a government.

That said, I oppose abortion on moral grounds and I also think this was wrong. The shooter should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and leaders of the anti-abortion movement should come out and condemn the act.
 
linusrichard said:
I guess there's two ways to take that. On the one hand, yes, it would. Make no mistake, I am foursquare against what this guy did, killing the abortion doctor. I am not trying to defend it.

But if the situation I described were happening, I would commit what the law would consider "murder" (to me, justifiable homicide) in order to prevent what the law considered "not murder" (to me, murder). Which I guess brings me to the second way to take your question, which is to say that, in reality everyone does get to choose their own definition of murder, which is one reason the world is such a scary place. Except that most people have pretty much agreed on the same definition, and most of those who haven't agreed will at least behave as if they do.

I just can't wrap my mind around someone truly believing a fetus is a person and not doing everything within their power to avert their mass slaughter. The fact that most pro-lifers don't go to extremes tells me that they don't believe their own baloney - that they don't actually believe a fetus is a person.
Click to expand...


Well, now hang on a second. Do people who oppose the death penalty spring convicts from death row? And if they don't, are their beliefs "baloney"? Are the only people who really believe in freedom the people who throw themselves in front of tanks? In other words, if you think human rights are worth dying for, but you haven't done anything to risk your own life, are you full of "baloney"? Do people who support assisted suicide only really believe their "baloney" if they find a few people to help die? I mean, think that through for a minute.
 
Donal said:
Not primarily. Tiller himself was the target to prevent his actions. An assassination is not necessarily terrorism.

Terrorism more or less targets random people to intimidate a government.

That said, I oppose abortion on moral grounds and I also think this was wrong. The shooter should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and leaders of the anti-abortion movement should come out and condemn the act.
Click to expand...

I'd still say this fits. It is meant to show other docs what will happen to them if they continue to "sin." Other doctors have stopped providing abortions because of similar attacks in the past.

Its terrorism, and that was a bad thing, just a year ago.
 
OK now that we know he is a religious whackjob (which is to be read as, "religious and a whackjob," not "if religious then a whackjob," Beeps. One would think after all this time, you'd know me better than that.), I'm ready to commence with the, "You and your God are ********."
 
Robster said:
I'd still say this fits. It is meant to show other docs what will happen to them if they continue to "sin." Other doctors have stopped providing abortions because of similar attacks in the past.

Its terrorism, and that was a bad thing, just a year ago.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. It is intimidation through violence...and if the guy shot him because he was a doctor who performed abortions, rather than just some crazy guy with a gun walking in and shooting someone randomly (which has happened--it is possible, I suppose, that this could be unrelated to abortion), it seems quite obvious to me that it is intended to send a bigger message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom