Was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justified?

[freedombecki]

Killing someone because of your religious beliefs is about as dumb as it gets. I can just imagine the confusion on the faces of newly expired people that believe the Bible is more than a great historical book with commentary from those that wish to organize you..

Killing someone because of your religious beliefs is about as dumb as it gets

Yes, and killing someone because of no religious beliefs is equally dumb. Making other people pay for it is over the top.

I never heard of anyone killing someone because they they lacked any religious belief. You got a link on that?.

No. But if you ever read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, you would quite understand I am on the money.

 

[Listening]

What is the basis for "justification" ? Anything beyond the law is pretty meaningless because it requires an appeal to things we don't all agree on. That is why we have laws. this was a premediated taking of life (something Tiller did all the time...but let's not go there).

Well, yes, but I wonder why you directed this and your last at my comments as I have said as much in those statements? I was simply answering the OP who asked if the event was justified.

And so, under the law it was clearly not justified and the penalty should have been death (like they gave an abortion clinic bomber in AZ).

The guy who killed Tiller was guilty.

Zimmerman was not-guilty. Or innocent (they are the same under the law). But the left, which is so quick to condem Tillers murderer can't seem to let Zimmer go so easily.

Hence, my point, and my shot the hypocrites on the left (and on the right if you want to talk about O.J.).

I am interested in the OJ statement as it has no resemblance with the Zimmerman case. The issue there was a direct acquittal NOT a justified killing as was the end result of the Zimmerman case. Just because we adhere to the law does not mean that we all need believe that a jury gets it correct 100% of the time. We know that to be false but use the system anyway because it is the best that we have to work with. IF tiller’s murderer was acquitted it would not change my opinion on what should have happened. I could say the same thing for the Casey Antony case. That (as is the OJ case) are, IMHO, gross failures of the system that we use. This opinion is based on the hard facts of those cases. I would challenge those that disagree with the Zimmerman verdict (not in this thread though – that has been done in others) to apply the same standard though. As far as I have seen, arguments in that area have almost nothing at all to stand on where the other 2 cases have a LOT to stand on as far as disagreeing with the jury. It is simply the reality of human nature that we get things incorrect sometimes. If that were not the case then abortion would not even be an issue as there would be no need.

Nobody liked the OJ verdict and yet many people screamed up one side and down the other saying it was because he was black and a former NFL player. I didn't pay that much attention. He was tried and found not guilty. End of legal discussion.

Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. End of legal discussion.

Even if they get it wrong (and let someone go), they are, by definition, not guilty.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killing someone because of your religious beliefs is about as dumb as it gets. I can just imagine the confusion on the faces of newly expired people that believe the Bible is more than a great historical book with commentary from those that wish to organize you..

Not if you believe in sharia law.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, and killing someone because of no religious beliefs is equally dumb. Making other people pay for it is over the top.

I never heard of anyone killing someone because they they lacked any religious belief. You got a link on that?.

No. But if you ever read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, you would quite understand I am on the money.

I will give that a look see.

 

[arKangel]

You see someone stabbing a screaming baby with a knife.

You have a loaded firearm.

What do you do?

 

[Mertex]

You see someone stabbing a baby with a knife.

You have a loaded firearm.

What do you do?

Really? Tiller was stabbing a baby in church? That's the first I heard of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

 

[arKangel]

Really? Tiller was stabbing a baby in church? That's the first I heard of that.

You didn't answer the question.

My guess is that you would argue to shoot the baby?
After all, you hate babies don't you?

And for good reason, it’s ignorant idiocy.

Abortion is not ‘murder,’ that you believe it to be is subjective and legally irrelevant. Nor is a fetus a ‘person’ in the context of the law:

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

I did not say "murder".

So will you answer the question?
XXXXXXX

 

[Intense]

This is the CDZ The focus is Civil Discourse, regardless of topic matter. Please try to remember that.

 

[Intense]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

What exactly is the foundation of your premise here? 5 People in Black Robes arbitrarily drew a line in the sand and decreed that they know best when life begins, when a fetus transforms into a human being. Granted, that is not the point here. The court that has given itself arbitrary power to make such decrees has also given itself the power to reverse anything it says or does. So until the Court wakes up and smells the burnt coffee, until it learns to see past it's own arrogance, consider yourself legally correct. Some day the wind will change, and an abominable practice which dwarfs even the Holocaust, in volume, even the casualties of all wars combined, will at the least be reigned in. Those that profit from it, have a lot to account for. There is litterally nothing to take pride in, here.

Answer me this.....

What is a Soul? When does it enter the Human Body?

If one cannot answer this with authority, how can one honestly proclaim either when human life begins, or what is and is not human?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

Exactly.

One's opinion of abortion is moot. Its legal. Murder is not.

 

[Listening]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

Albuquerque voters to decide on nation?s first municipal abortion ban - Salon.com

Apparently the process still allows people to vote on abortion.

You wanted to say you could somehow stop this ? They can't enact laws ?

Just who do you think you are ?

 

[Asclepias]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

What exactly is the foundation of your premise here? 5 People in Black Robes arbitrarily drew a line in the sand and decreed that they know best when life begins, when a fetus transforms into a human being. Granted, that is not the point here. The court that has given itself arbitrary power to make such decrees has also given itself the power to reverse anything it says or does. So until the Court wakes up and smells the burnt coffee, until it learns to see past it's own arrogance, consider yourself legally correct. Some day the wind will change, and an abominable practice which dwarfs even the Holocaust, in volume, even the casualties of all wars combined, will at the least be reigned in. Those that profit from it, have a lot to account for. There is litterally nothing to take pride in, here.

Answer me this.....

What is a Soul? When does it enter the Human Body?

If one cannot answer this with authority, how can one honestly proclaim either when human life begins, or what is and is not human?

Wouldn't you have to be able to prove the existence of a soul?

 

[arKangel]

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

You’re entitled to exhibit your ignorance, but you are not entitled to enact laws based on that ignorance, or to take the law into your own hands.

What exactly is the foundation of your premise here? 5 People in Black Robes arbitrarily drew a line in the sand and decreed that they know best when life begins, when a fetus transforms into a human being. Granted, that is not the point here. The court that has given itself arbitrary power to make such decrees has also given itself the power to reverse anything it says or does. So until the Court wakes up and smells the burnt coffee, until it learns to see past it's own arrogance, consider yourself legally correct. Some day the wind will change, and an abominable practice which dwarfs even the Holocaust, in volume, even the casualties of all wars combined, will at the least be reigned in. Those that profit from it, have a lot to account for. There is litterally nothing to take pride in, here.

Answer me this.....

What is a Soul? When does it enter the Human Body?

If one cannot answer this with authority, how can one honestly proclaim either when human life begins, or what is and is not human?

Blackmon was wholly ignorant of what "life" is, or wholly in the pocket of the tribe of those who profit from killing babies.

Either way, he did not know what he was talking about.

Life, is scientifically defined as protein synthesis.
Which makes sense, if you care for facts.

Granted, those who argue for baby killing are pretty far from discussing facts. They want dead babies, no reason necessary.

Moving on,
"Fetus" is another (dehumanizing) word for baby.
Could you please use English?, as opposed to archaic propaganda terms?
I know, I know, you have your agenda...

More so, please pick up a book on basic biology.

"Person hood" is a propaganda construct, it has no real definition other than the demented blathering of aged communists, slavers, and baby butchers.
Slave owners consider their slave to not be "persons", so to use the term "person" in such a context shows an agreement with slavery.

Life on the other hand, is not some propaganda concept, it is scientific fact.

 

[Mertex]

No one really knows when life begins. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, don't believe that one is a person until after one is "born".

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate at which point the soul enters the body. We know that sperm, ova, and different types of cells and embryos can be frozen, and restored back to their original state and still be considered "alive", but I don't believe that they can freeze a fetus, neither can a person be frozen and restored back to its original "live" state.

So, would an embryo have a soul? That can be frozen? And, if there is no soul, can it be considered a person?

 

[Listening]

No one really knows when life begins. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, don't believe that one is a person until after one is "born".

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate at which point the soul enters the body. We know that sperm, ova, and different types of cells and embryos can be frozen, and restored back to their original state and still be considered "alive", but I don't believe that they can freeze a fetus, neither can a person be frozen and restored back to its original "live" state.

So, would an embryo have a soul? That can be frozen? And, if there is no soul, can it be considered a person?

That's quite an admission...that you don't know that it does not start at conception.

 

[Mertex]

No one really knows when life begins. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, don't believe that one is a person until after one is "born".

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate at which point the soul enters the body. We know that sperm, ova, and different types of cells and embryos can be frozen, and restored back to their original state and still be considered "alive", but I don't believe that they can freeze a fetus, neither can a person be frozen and restored back to its original "live" state.

So, would an embryo have a soul? That can be frozen? And, if there is no soul, can it be considered a person?

That's quite an admission...that you don't know that it does not start at conception.

So, you know that "it does not start at conception"? Or did you just make a grammar error?

 

[arKangel]

Life is protein synthesis, scientific fact.
So people, the facts do indeed show when life begins.

Imagine that,
Baby haters argue that the "bible" tells us it's perfectly OK to kill babies!


While reasonable people simply stick to facts.

Now we return your show to the regularly scheduled propaganda...

 

[Listening]

No one really knows when life begins. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, don't believe that one is a person until after one is "born".

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate at which point the soul enters the body. We know that sperm, ova, and different types of cells and embryos can be frozen, and restored back to their original state and still be considered "alive", but I don't believe that they can freeze a fetus, neither can a person be frozen and restored back to its original "live" state.

So, would an embryo have a soul? That can be frozen? And, if there is no soul, can it be considered a person?

That's quite an admission...that you don't know that it does not start at conception.

So, you know that "it does not start at conception"? Or did you just make a grammar error?

Keep looking at it. It'll come to you.

Or are you now contradicting your earlier claim ?

 

[Mertex]

That's quite an admission...that you don't know that it does not start at conception.

So, you know that "it does not start at conception"? Or did you just make a grammar error?

Keep looking at it. It'll come to you.

Or are you now contradicting your earlier claim ?

I don't know that "it starts at conception" that's what I said....you're saying that I said "I don't know that it doesn't start at conception" which is a double negative and actually ends up saying the opposite of what I said. You look at it, maybe you'll figure it out.