Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Pro life murder

123578

Comments

  • #122
    gardaitester06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31 ✭gardaitester06


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Except the first part isn't true at all.

    Neither is the second part.... the shooter was providing a service for unborn children, so it's not murder.


  • #123
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Neither is the second part.... the shooter was providing a service for unborn children, so it's not murder.

    I'd suggest you read the damn thread but i imagine you've a strong aversion to things like reality.


  • #124
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Boston wrote: »
    Would you kill Hitler?
    No. It would disrupt the time line and I might not be born. Then I couldn't go back in time and kill him because I wouldn't exist. Therefore Hitler was unstoppable. Until he put a gun to his own head.

    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Neither is the second part.... the shooter was providing a service for unborn children, so it's not murder.

    So if I was to kill the shooter, would I be justified in doing so?
    By your logic, I'd be providing a service to doctors.

    Would I be justified in killing all right wing Christian fundamentalists in case they decide to murder another doctor?


  • #125
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Terry wrote: »
    No. It would disrupt the time line and I might not be born. Then I couldn't go back in time and kill him because I wouldn't exist. Therefore Hitler was unstoppable. Until he put a gun to his own head.

    Damnit, maybe another approach.


    The Doctor was just a bunch of cells.


  • #126
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Boston wrote: »
    Damnit, maybe another approach.


    The Doctor was just a bunch of cells.
    Then so are you.
    Bang.



    Please note that this is not a threat against the life of Boston or anyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    God damn it, stop poking me with that coat hanger.


  • #128
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Boston wrote: »
    The Doctor was just a bunch of cells.

    Yes, but he's also a timelord.


  • #129
    Acacia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    The shooter (is that a word? lol) is a complete hypocrite and twat. But then the incident is not surprising, as these pro-life nutballs value the life of the child over everybody else...

    Won't somebody please think of the children?


  • #130
    gardaitester06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31 ✭gardaitester06


    Acacia wrote: »
    The shooter (is that a word? lol) is a complete hypocrite and twat.


    About as hypocritical as someone who thinks its ok to murder the unborn child while condeming the murder of the mass murdering "doctor" and twat.


  • #131
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    About as hypocritical as someone who thinks its ok to murder the unborn child while condeming the murder of the mass murdering "doctor" and twat.
    Why, in your opinion, is abortion wrong and why did the doctor deserve to die?

    Do you believe that an eye for an eye is an acceptable course of action?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    gardaitester06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31 ✭gardaitester06


    Terry wrote: »
    So if I was to kill the shooter, would I be justified in doing so?
    By your logic, I'd be providing a service to doctors.

    Would you be justified?

    You have to ask whether or not killing people is ok or not. If like the "doctor" you think it's ok then yeah you're justified.

    This "doctor" was responsible for literally thousands of murders, it's about time someone put an end to his killing spree.


  • #133
    gardaitester06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31 ✭gardaitester06


    Terry wrote: »
    Why, in your opinion, is abortion wrong and why did the doctor deserve to die?

    Do you believe that an eye for an eye is an acceptable course of action?

    Abortion is wrong because you're murdering a child.

    Irregardless of my weak religious beliefs, if there was a man in my area who was murdering children on a daily basis, I wouldn't be long in stopping it. Not saying I'd kill him, I wouldn't, but I'd make sure he never did it again.


  • #134
    Acacia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    About as hypocritical as someone who thinks its ok to murder the unborn child while condeming the murder of the mass murdering "doctor" and twat.

    Oh noes! I hit a nerve! If you don't think murdering someone while proclaiming to be pro-life is hypocritical, you may want to look for the definition of the word 'hypocrite'.

    I see your riding on your high-horse- not once did I say it's okay to murder an unborn child.

    Just find where I said anything of the sort in my post.


  • #135
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Is that the way you'd do it gardaitester06? Take the law into your own hands? I hope you failed the garda recruitment process.


  • #136
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Would you be justified?

    You have to ask whether or not killing people is ok or not. If like the "doctor" you think it's ok then yeah you're justified.

    This "doctor" was responsible for literally thousands of murders, it's about time someone put an end to his killing spree.
    I was going to ban for this post and make up some crap about being justified in my actions, but then I read the one below.

    That's just wrong on quite a few levels and vigilantes are not welcome here.

    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Abortion is wrong because you're murdering a child.

    Irregardless of my weak religious beliefs, if there was a man in my area who was murdering children on a daily basis, I wouldn't be long in stopping it. Not saying I'd kill him, I wouldn't, but I'd make sure he never did it again.


  • #137
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Abortion is wrong because you're murdering a child.

    Amen.
    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    Regardless of my weak religious beliefs, if there was a man in my area who was murdering children on a daily basis, I wouldn't be long in stopping it. Not saying I'd kill him, I wouldn't, but I'd make sure he never did it again.

    Firstly, don't apologise for your beliefs about a certain topic :)

    Secondly, there is an appropriate means of action if one seeks to stop abortions. Use the political system that we have to advocate for the human rights of the unborn who are our equals. We don't need to descend to the level of death, murder and terrorism to justify a pro-life position. Infact it's really the only reasonable approach when you give it a bit of thought. A human foetus is a human life biologically and as a fellow member of our species it is due respect.

    Thirdly, pro-life means, pro-life for everybody including the abortionist. I don't think the gunman should have had the choice whether or not to take someones life, just as much I don't think anybody has the right whether or not to take someones life when it is forming in the womb.

    I think your heart is in the right place however. I think preventing abortion is a good cause and the right cause except where the mothers life is endangered so that both would not survive anyway.


  • #138
    Raze_them_all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,477 ✭✭✭✭Raze_them_all


    Killing for pro life is like ****ing for virginity


  • #139
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think preventing abortion is a good cause and the right cause except where the mothers life is endangered so that both would not survive anyway.

    So we both agree that George Tiller was a good man doing good work?

    Sweet.


  • #140
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    So we both agree that George Tiller was a good man doing good work?

    Sweet.

    I think that he committed horrible acts but is deserving of our mercy. We shouldn't be carrying out vigilante justice, we must trust our governments. Two wrongs do not make a right, and believe me, I consider abortion a grave wrong. We don't know whether any of his abortions were due to life endangerment of the mother.


  • #141
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,001 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    gardaitester06 wrote: »
    The evil scumlord "doctor" was a mass murderer in my eyes.

    He got what he deserved.

    Not really, he did nothing illegal. If your for people going around administering their own kind of justice then there will be many more murders and deaths in the world.
    The shooter did what most other human beings would do to a mass murderer;

    He killed the cu*t before he killed again.

    Fair play.

    The "doctor" murdered innocent children and made a profit, the shooter paid him back with his own coin. Justice.

    If most other human beings would do it then why is it legal in the state? Are you saying it is mostly a state of non-human zombies or are most of its residents supporters of murder in which case why is murder illegal in the state?

    Seems to be a conflict of opinion between you, the murderer and the doctor and the state laws which most of the citizens probably support since they aren't demanding changes to the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thebman wrote: »
    If most other human beings would do it then why is it legal in the state? Are you saying it is mostly a state of non-human zombies or are most of its residents supporters of murder in which case why is murder illegal in the state?

    Actually following Roe vs Wade in 1973 all states had to legalise abortion whether or not the majority agreed with it or not due to a federal Supreme Court ruling. It's an anti-democratic piece of legislation and it really should be repealed if they truly want the people to decide. This was a major part of John McCain's campaign, but Obama seems to be happy enough with the current arrangement.


  • #143
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    if they truly want the people to decide,
    they'd be pro choice


  • #144
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    they'd be pro choice

    To decide legislatively is different from legalising abortion entirely. There are many states which are majority pro-life and they've had abortion legalisation forced on them. It'll probably happen on other contentious issues in the future unfortunately.


  • #145
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually following Roe vs Wade in 1973 all states had to legalise abortion whether or not the majority agreed with it or not due to a federal Supreme Court ruling. It's an anti-democratic piece of legislation and it really should be repealed if they truly want the people to decide. This was a major part of John McCain's campaign, but Obama seems to be happy enough with the current arrangement.
    Yet McCain was not elected president.


  • #146
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Terry wrote: »
    Yet McCain was not elected president.

    Indeed he wasn't. That doesn't mean that every Obama supporter was pro-choice either. Infact he didn't mention his policy on it until rather late into his campaign.


  • #147
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,043 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually following Roe vs Wade in 1973 all states had to legalise abortion whether or not the majority agreed with it or not due to a federal Supreme Court ruling. It's an anti-democratic piece of legislation and it really should be repealed if they truly want the people to decide. This was a major part of John McCain's campaign, but Obama seems to be happy enough with the current arrangement.

    Actually roe v wade left states to decide for themselves on a state by state bases, which is pretty democratic and some states do not have abortion the same way some states are dry states.


  • #148
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Actually roe v wade left states to decide for themselves on a state by state bases, which is pretty democratic and some states do not have abortion the same way some states are dry states.

    Wikipedia says the following:
    The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.

    It effectively overturned the previous position that states would have had on the issue by a universal Supreme Court ruling. Again, doesn't sound very democratic at all.

    I'm curious as to where you got this notion from though, as it was one of McCains campaign policies that abortion should be decided on state by state. Why would he need to say that if it were already the case?

    On the topic, heres a video about how Dr. Tiller carried out abortions in his clinic from a few years ago:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMC_70oYV8U


  • #149
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    LMAO.
    Bill O'Reilly and a chick who claims she was promiscuous AFTER an abortion at the age of 14.

    She also makes no mention of whether or not her parents played a role in the decision.

    That damn doctor making her have sex and do drugs. He really had some neck.
    The girl is not responsible for any of her actions of course.
    It was all Dr. Tiller's fault.


  • #150
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,638 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    I'll nail my colours to the mast straight away, I am male and Pro-Life and I hold that view as a non religious person. I believe we have a finite period of time in which we as individuals exist and to deny another individual (which I firmly believe the unborn baby is) that existance is a crime, in much the same way as the killing of any other individual.

    The ethics of allowing a person to be born into severe pain or where the birth creates problems with the mother or child are all too often used to cloud a situation that in my opinion is black and white. The grey arguments of "well if your wife was......", "suicidial thoughts" etc are all to often extolled by pro-choice groups as a justification for the legality of abortions.

    I just wonder what do those who advocate pro-choice think about Euthanasia, I will admit that I have no problem with any individual making an informed decision by themselves to end their own existance. My only fear is that these people might somehow be forced into making that choice for the 'sake' of their families.

    The treatments available to a person apart from comtemplating suicide are for another discussion but at least they are making the choice. Do pro-choice advocates see a situation where children could seek to have their parents euthanized because their care has becoming too expensive or that care is beginning to disrupt their own lifestyle and therefore their death would be justified. The vast majority of abortions are carried out for these 'lifestyle choice' reasons and so I wonder how one might view one decision, the killing of a baby by a parent as being somehow ok and not the other. By the way how many object to my use of the word baby over fetus. Fetus as a medical term is used to somehow sanitise the whole abortion process, what person asks an expantant mother "can you feel the fetus kick yet".

    As to the justification or not in the killing of the American doctor, I again personally believe that it was wrong and no reason would justify it. I as of yet do not fully know the background of the killer but like most patsy's they were probably duped into believing that they were saving lives. Why not simply cut the power to these clinics daily or disrupt there running. What makes this death doublely tragic is that both sides of the agrument will now use it to make press for their cause.

    I am constanly amazed that we as a society recoil in horror at the idea that a parent could somehow allow their child to die by refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, yet some of us would have defended that same women if she had decided that the 'time had not been right' for her to have that same child.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Terry: I agree with you on her excuses, that isn't correct, but it does bring notable concern to what Tiller actually did at his clinic. Mind you I consider the murder to be outright wrong, and I don't have any reason to think that Tiller wouldn't have been brought to justice should he have carried out serious abuses in his role on the other charges concerning his abortion practices he was going to have to deal with in court.


Advertisement
Advertisement