Pro life murder

orestes

Police have captured the man they say is responsible for the murder of a controversial American doctor who provided late-term abortions.

George Tiller was shot dead outside his church

Dr Tiller and the scene of the shooting in Kansas

Scott Roeder, 51, was detained 170 miles from the scene where the doctor was shot dead at a Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas.

Roeder was detained three hours after the Sunday shooting in suburban Kansas City.

His victim, 67-year-old Dr George Tiller, was one of the few doctors who still terminated late-term pregnancies in the United States.

Dr Tiller was demonised by abortion opponents, who regularly protested outside his Wichita clinic.

President Obama expressed shock and outrage at his murder.

He said: "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

There was no immediate word on the motive of Dr Tiller's killer.

But his violent death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics, doctors and staff.

Dr Tiller had already been on the receiving end of a series of violent incidents. In 1986, a bomb was placed on the roof of his clinic, seriously damaging the building.

In 1993, he was shot in both arms outside the clinic. He recovered and his attacker was given an 11-year prison term.

Some 2,000 protesters were also arrested outside the clinic during summer-long demonstrations in 1991.

Dr Tiller was acquitted in March on charges that he performed 19 illegal abortions in 2003.

The killing comes as the Obama administration is seeking confirmation to the US Supreme Court of Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge whom many anti-abortion groups have vowed to oppose.

A more liberal selection of judges on the US's highest court is likely to see the controversial issue readdressed in favour of the pro-abortion lobby.

Currently whether or not abortions are permitted is decided separately by each US state.

But a new federal decision by the Supreme Court could see the issue decided by the national government, which is likely to permit abortions under President Obama

We're so pro life and believe so strongly that every life is sacred that we will kill people who don't respect the sanctity of life!

Commiting murder to support a pro-life standpoint.

Fail is an understatement.

Absolute dumb**** whackjob bigot psycho fukking retard idiot is an understatement too, but it's closer to the target. Fukkwit.

philologos

That person is as wrong as anyone else who has killed. I don't get how you can be pro-life and murder someone else.

hussey

Those danm Yanks

Min

Two wrongs never made a right.

orestes

Jakkass wrote: »

That person is as wrong as anyone else who has killed. I don't get how you can be pro-life and murder someone else.

I didn't think I would ever agree with you over something along the lines of this very sensitive subject, considring in the last thread we had polar opposite views, but I am happy to be proven wrong sir

Rented Mule

I've said it before and I will say it again.

Guns and Jesus .....the staples that hold the GOP together.

**********************************************

In regards to the doctor who was murdered.....not a great choice of location to be an abortion doctor.

This is Westboro Baptist Church country.

Abi

orestes wrote: »

We're so pro life and believe so strongly that every life is sacred that we will kill people who don't respect the sanctity of life!

Commiting murder to support a pro-life standpoint.

Fail is an understatement.

Absolute dumb**** whackjob bigot psycho fukking retard idiot is an understatement too, but it's closer to the target. Fukkwit.

I'm not sure he saw the irony. He treated women for late-term abortions, and as someone who is for abortion (early term only) I find it pretty sickening.

What I can't understand is why a woman would carry a baby close to term then decide she doesn't want it!?

jells bells

Abigayle wrote: »

I'm not sure he saw the irony. He treated women for late-term abortions, and as someone who is for abortion (early term only) I find it pretty sickening.

What I can't understand is why a woman would carry a baby close to term then decide she doesn't want it!?

Agreed re: late term abortions in general, but don't think this was that straightforward.

From CNN: His patients were "almost always in circumstances where something had gone horribly wrong with a pregnancy," and where a woman's health would be endangered if the pregnancy continued...

Splendour

The words 'kettle, pot,black' spring to mind here...

magick

i have an iron and well and a wrinkled shirt.................

im not gonna say any more

King of Kings

pro life murder is not the misnomer (or fail) you claim it to be (OP) - the shooter (probably) felt that by killing the doctor he would save the lives of children.
I don't actually agree with the shooters actions but the logic seems very sound to me.

as for a doctor performing late term abortion - he was a very unpleasant man - i for one won't shed any tears.

philologos

King of Kings wrote: »

as for a doctor performing late term abortion - he was a very unpleasant man - i for one won't shed any tears.

This is highly irrelevant. Whether this guy was the nastiest man alive or not is clearly not the point, the point is it's hardly pro-life to shoot someone outside a church of all places for carrying out abortions. Certainly this man should have been brought to justice for his illegal abortions but shooting someone dead in a vigilante style killing isn't an effective way to deal with it.

galwayrush

King of Kings wrote: »

pro life murder is not the misnomer (or fail) you claim it to be (OP) - the shooter (probably) felt that by killing the doctor he would save the lives of children.
I don't actually agree with the shooters actions but the logic seems very sound to me.

as for a doctor performing late term abortion - he was a very unpleasant man - i for one won't shed any tears.

I am a liberal person, but by definition, this doctor aborted at a stage where a lot of the babies could have survived .I can't feel any sympathy for him.

edit, i'm not saying it was right to shoot him, just i don't feel any sympathy for him.

King of Kings

Jakkass wrote: »

This is highly irrelevant. Whether this guy was the nastiest man alive or not is clearly not the point, the point is it's hardly pro-life to shoot someone outside a church of all places for carrying out abortions.

it's irrelevant where he was killed.
You have latched on to my personal opinion on the shooting rather than the main thrust of my point. YOU ARE IRRELEVANT.


Certainly this man should have been brought to justice for his illegal abortions but shooting someone dead in a vigilante style killing isn't an effective way to deal with it.[/QUOTE]

in your opinion. I'm sure the shooter disagrees. The law is frequently an ass and people often feel they must take the law into their own hands.
The law is not infallible . Laws are made by politicians - you can guess the rest.

Gummy Panda

This is going to be a heated debate

/popcorn

pablomakaveli

I might be wrong here but did'nt he only perform abortions where the foetus was severely deformed or very unlikely to survive or if the mothers life was in danger.

As for the murder theres no excuse regardless. The hypocrisy of the murder shows how stupid (and dangerous) some of these pro-life people are.

walshb

Surely after all the previous crap and attempts on his life, he would have said "enough is enough, this crap aint worth my life."

He had to be aware that there were whack jobs out to do him harm.

Feck sake, 67 years of age and he's putting himself in so much danger.
A man at that age should have been retired and enjoying the rest of
his life

Ro: maaan!

Saying he's a retard, idiot, etc for being pro life and yet still killing someone isn't very accurate. "Pro life" is just a name that the group have. It really just means anti abortion. He may be in favour of let's say the death penalty, but still be against abortion. The obvious difference being that the unborn baby hasn't done anything and should be given the chance to live. Where as someone who has commited a crime has forfitted his or her life.

Anyway, not saying it was right for him to kill him. Just that it's not a black and white issue of pro life = anti murder.

walshb

I agree! You can be anti abortion and pro death penalty or like me, pro choice and pro death penalty. It is not a black and white isue

Handsome Bob

Rented Mule wrote: »

This is Westboro Baptist Church country.

The numbers in the Westboro Baptist Church are quite proportionately small compared to the entire population of the US.

Anyway, using violence, and to actually go and murder someone, is the last kind of press that an interest group would want. Words fail me.

Manic Moran

Commiting murder to support a pro-life standpoint.

Fail is an understatement.

It's a similar logic to the death penalty argument. The aborted children never did anything to forfeit their lives. By chosing to kill the innocent, people do forfeit their right to live. Therefore one has a very definite moral distinction between the two cases.

Of course, you do have the issue of vigilanteism

NTM

Terry

No miniature American flags then?

Hagar

Jakkass wrote: »

shooting someone dead in a vigilante style killing isn't an effective way to deal with it.

I disagree, if the goal of the shooter was to prevent the doctor from carrying out any more abortions, it was effective.
Not justifiable, not legal, not morally correct but undeniably 100% effective.

RandolphEsq

*oops*

RandolphEsq

walshb wrote: »

Surely after all the previous crap and attempts on his life, he would have said "enough is enough, this crap aint worth my life."

He had to be aware that there were whack jobs out to do him harm.

If do-gooders took that attitude to threats on their life the world would be an awful lot worse

minidazzler

Jakkass wrote: »

This is highly irrelevant. Whether this guy was the nastiest man alive or not is clearly not the point, the point is it's hardly pro-life to shoot someone outside a church of all places for carrying out abortions. Certainly this man should have been brought to justice for his illegal abortions but shooting someone dead in a vigilante style killing isn't an effective way to deal with it.

Pro-life is not the same as Anti-Abortion.

I am Anti-Abortion but not Pro-Life, because I believe there are people who deserve to die. (Not the Doc, but there are people.)

philologos

minidazzler wrote: »

Pro-life is not the same as Anti-Abortion.

People who are pro-life are anti-abortion in general. Some people may be opposed to abortion and be pro-death in other respects. I think it would greatly weaken your case however. How can you justify killing one person in one circumstance versus killing another in another circumstance?

seanybiker

67 years is fairly late term alright.
Delighted he is dead.

Terry

Hagar wrote: »

I disagree, if the goal of the shooter was to prevent the doctor from carrying out any more abortions, it was effective.
Not justifiable, not legal, not morally correct but undeniably 100% effective.

Dude has a point.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

People who are pro-life are anti-abortion in general. Some people may be opposed to abortion and be pro-death in other respects. I think it would greatly weaken your case however. How can you justify killing one person in one circumstance versus killing another in another circumstance?

If they refuse to worship Jesus?

philologos

Crusades are the complete antithesis of what Jesus ever taught. Hence why I can gladly say that I oppose them completely. Any good history of them will tell you that there were a large array of other factors involved. Anyhow, may be best to discuss the topic at hand rather than the Crusades eh?

phic

walshb wrote: »

Surely after all the previous crap and attempts on his life, he would have said "enough is enough, this crap aint worth my life."

He had to be aware that there were whack jobs out to do him harm.

Feck sake, 67 years of age and he's putting himself in so much danger.
A man at that age should have been retired and enjoying the rest of
his life

he had been shot before, so Im sure he realised the risks. maybe he thought the work he was doing was worth risking his life. Its better that the woman would get a legal abortion in a recognised clinic even at this late stage, rather than an backstreet/home abortion which would endanger her life greatly.

minidazzler

Jakkass wrote: »

People who are pro-life are anti-abortion in general. Some people may be opposed to abortion and be pro-death in other respects. I think it would greatly weaken your case however. How can you justify killing one person in one circumstance versus killing another in another circumstance?

Ok, Man goes out and kills 4 people, he deserves to die.

Man Perform's abortions, I don't like it, but I recognise the Foetes are for all intents and purposes Parasites who need their mothers womb to survive, he doesn't deserve death, just a good beating.

I should have had the Pro-life and Anti-Abortion around in my original Statement. It should have said "Anti-Abortion is not the same as Pro-Life."

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

Crusades are the complete antithesis of what Jesus ever taught. Hence why I can gladly say that I oppose them completely. Any good history of them will tell you that there were a large array of other factors involved. Anyhow, may be best to discuss the topic at hand rather than the Crusades eh?

Ok. Just as long as you remember that Jesus had no stance on abortion. None at all. There is no possible way to spin it.

minidazzler wrote: »

Ok, Man goes out and kills 4 people, he deserves to die.

Man Perform's abortions, I don't like it, but I recognise the Foetes are for all intents and purposes Parasites who need their mothers womb to survive, he doesn't deserve death, just a good beating.

I should have had the Pro-life and Anti-Abortion around in my original Statement. It should have said "Anti-Abortion is not the same as Pro-Life."

So who kills the killer and does the killer of the killer then get killed by someone else?

giggsy664

Min wrote: »

Two wrongs never made a right.

But 3 yes's do!

Edit: I mean 3 lefts do.

minidazzler

Terry wrote: »

So who kills the killer and does the killer of the killer then get killed by someone else?

No, he kills "himself" Convieniently all cameras were turned off and a perfect noose is what he is found hanging on.

Terry

minidazzler wrote: »

No, he kills "himself" Convieniently all cameras were turned off and a perfect noose is what he is found hanging on.

But why would he kill himself?
Was he depressed?
There's treatment for that these days.

minidazzler

Terry wrote: »

But why would he kill himself?
Was he depressed?
There's treatment for that these days.

I refuse to dignify this with an answer. Otherwise we will be here all day!!!

AARRRGH

jells bells wrote: »

From CNN: His patients were "almost always in circumstances where something had gone horribly wrong with a pregnancy," and where a woman's health would be endangered if the pregnancy continued...

Almost always is unacceptable. It should just be always. Late term abortion as a lifestyle choice is a horrendously selfish and nasty decision. "Oh I don't want to wait two or three more months because I'm tired of being pregnant." Dumbasses.

seanybiker wrote: »

67 years is fairly late term alright.
Delighted he is dead.

Indeed. The guy had it coming. I have no sympathy for him.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Just as long as you remember that Jesus had no stance on abortion. None at all. There is no possible way to spin it.

He was opposed to killing however, and abortion falls under that category . I'll remember this too.

phic

AARRRGH wrote: »

Almost always is unacceptable. It should just be always. Late term abortion as a lifestyle choice is a horrendously selfish and nasty decision. "Oh I don't want to wait two or three more months because I'm tired of being pregnant." Dumbasses.




Indeed. The guy had it coming. I have no sympathy for him.

Under Kansas law, late term abortion is illegal unless carrying the foetus to full term will cause "permanent loss of a bodily function" to the mother. Although some of the abortions he carried out were contested in court, all were found to be legal.
It's incredibly ignorant to say anyone has an abortion because they're "tired of being pregnant", and vindictave to say a doctor would carry out an abortion for this reason.
George Tiller risked, and lost his life to give women the reproductive rights they are entitled to, and I for one am sorry that he is dead.

minidazzler

Jakkass wrote: »

He was opposed to killing however, and abortion falls under that category . I'll remember this too.

That depends on who you ask. Pro-Choice people don't think it's killing. How do you know if Jesus was Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

thebman

Reminds me of It's always sunny in philidephia episode called Charlie wants an abortion.

Mac: You know, Den, I was thinking about what you were saying the other day about the t-shirts with the stupid slogans on them, and I was wondering what you think about this! (reveals a shirt that says "Death to baby killers") Huh, bitch? Yeah, is that stupid enough for ya?

Megan: What's this?
Mac: That's a list of the doctors I'm going to kill.
Megan: There's two already crossed out.
Mac: Yeah, I know.
(Afterwards, they proceed to have sex in a car.)

philologos

I don't consider it a matter of who you ask:

1. Growth is an attribute of life.
2. A human foetus is growing.
3. A human foetus is alive.

Killing is killing. If someone is alive, to make it so that it is no longer alive is killing. There isn't much wriggle room around that.

minidazzler

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider it a matter of who you ask:

1. Growth is an attribute of life.
2. A human foetus is growing.
3. A human foetus is alive.

Killing is killing. If someone is alive, to make it so that it is no longer alive is killing. There isn't much wriggle room around that.

But the Foetes depends on it's host for survival, therefore it's actually a Parasite. If I had a Blood Parasite would it be killing for me to get rid of it?

I am actually Anti-Abortion, but in reality I just don'r care. But Arguing that a Foetus is alive is just crazy.

AARRRGH

phic wrote: »

Under Kansas law, late term abortion is illegal unless carrying the foetus to full term will cause "permanent loss of a bodily function" to the mother. Although some of the abortions he carried out were contested in court, all were found to be legal.
It's incredibly ignorant to say anyone has an abortion because they're "tired of being pregnant", and vindictave to say a doctor would carry out an abortion for this reason.
George Tiller risked, and lost his life to give women the reproductive rights they are entitled to, and I for one am sorry that he is dead.

You missed the almost always part of my post.

If they only almost always perform late term abortions because the woman or child are in danger, that means they also perform abortions for other reasons, i.e. where the woman or child are not in danger, i.e. for lifestyle reasons.

That is indefensible.

Terry

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

None of you see the hypocricy? No?
You're all happy that this man is dead while your Christian ethos tells you that murder is wrong?

I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that you really shouldn't kill anyone.
Actually, belief is the wrong word.
Your god commands that you not kill anyone.
He also commands that you not covet your neighbour's stuff. I think if you read into it correctly, that you will find that commandment includes not gloating when someone is murdered.

So technically you are not Christian if you are happy about this crime of murder.
You're actually leaning towards worshipping Satan.
See, he'd be happy about this, but God wouldn't.

If I was you, I'd start praying because the Abrahamic God is not going to be too pleased about your comments on this thread. I'd imagine he'd banish you to hell for gloating about someone being murdered.
Best of luck with that. Remember that he is a vengeful God.

philologos

minidazzler wrote: »

But the Foetes depends on it's host for survival, therefore it's actually a Parasite. If I had a Blood Parasite would it be killing for me to get rid of it?

The child depends on it's mother and father for survival, therefore it's actually a parasite?

Do you not understand that this is a fallacy? Dependance doesn't stop something being a human life.

If you had a blood parasite it wouldn't be killing a human being to get rid of it no. A blood parasite hasn't been formed from a sperm and a zygote and it isn't going to form into a human being just like you and me. A foetus is as we would expect human life at such an early stage.

minidazzler wrote: »

I am actually Anti-Abortion, but in reality I just don'r care. But Arguing that a Foetus is alive is just crazy.

It isn't crazy, it's factual. A foetus is certainly alive by the assessment of the criteria of growth biologically. Read the links on my signature to get a fuller view on my understanding on abortion, I don't want to repeat myself here.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

No, I think that it is horrible that this man has died even if he facilitated the death of many others he shouldn't have been murdered. This is nothing to rejoice about.

Terry wrote: »

None of you see the hypocricy? No?
You're all happy that this man is dead while your Christian ethos tells you that murder is wrong?

I don't see how anyone could be happy at this.

Terry wrote: »

I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that you really shouldn't kill anyone.

Amen.

Terry wrote: »

Actually, belief is the wrong word.
Your god commands that you not kill anyone.
He also commands that you not covet your neighbour's stuff. I think if you read into it correctly, that you will find that commandment includes not gloating when someone is murdered.

Yes, that's right.

Terry wrote: »

So technically you are not Christian if you are happy about this crime of murder.
You're actually leaning towards worshipping Satan.
See, he'd be happy about this, but God wouldn't.

Not objecting to this at all. This man acted on his anger and took another man in cold blood. Much like Cain took Abels life in Genesis ch 4.

Terry wrote: »

If I was you, I'd start praying because the Abrahamic God is not going to be too pleased about your comments on this thread. I'd imagine he'd banish you to hell for gloating about someone being murdered.
Best of luck with that. Remember that he is a vengeful God.

Bad idea to gloat, gotcha.

AARRRGH

Terry wrote: »

Where would the world be without the Christians preaching against death and then rejoicing about a murder in the same breath?

I'm not a Christian, but I think baby killing is wrong. That's all.

Benhonan

Jakkass wrote: »

The child depends on it's mother and father for survival, therefore it's actually a parasite?

That's a social dependence, it's entirely different from a biological, parasitic dependence. Growth is one factor of life, it's not definitive in and of itself. Geographic formations grow ffs. As for human life, well that's a different ball game altogether. Is a pre-implantation embryo (a ball of cells smaller than a full stop which is basically a blob) human life also? The Church's stance on this before was that life begins when the foetus first moves, about 3 months into the pregnancy (I think) so what's to say that the current stance is more in line with JHC's teachings than that one, or the pro-life one for that matter?