Was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justified?

[Sarah G]

Thanks Luddly, I have a link but I also saw a documentary some weeks back. Here's the link:

George R. Tiller News - The New York Times

As you scroll down, you will see more links to him being shot by a woman in his arms and other links to harassment.

 

[martybegan]

Thanks Luddly, I have a link but I also saw a documentary some weeks back. Here's the link:

George R. Tiller News - The New York Times

As you scroll down, you will see more links to him being shot by a woman in his arms and other links to harassment.

Being shot in the arms is not "harrasment", its being shot in the arms.

I hope this is not an attempt to equivocate people who protested outside his clinic peacfully to those who performed violence against the man and his property.

 

[Listening]

Oh didn't you hear?

Its okay to torture and murder if it fits your agenda. Same with starving homeless children.

Apparently, neither hungry children nor doctors have protein souls.

Or something.

What some don't seem to GET is that, at the end of every single one of these endless and circular threads are the same two, inescapable facts:

1. Abortion is legal.
2. Its none of their business.

Can you please supply a link to prove this ? This is the CDZ.

Sure thing -

Start with this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...the-murder-of-dr-george-tiller-justified.html

If that's not enough, do a search on this internet board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/

There are many posts on both that support that statement. Indeed, I'd bet you wrote many of them yourself.

All that really matters though are these two facts:

1. Abortion is legal.
2. Its none of their business.

Nice talkin'' to ya.

Are all forms of abortion legal ?

The rest do not support your assertions.

 

[Sarah G]

Thanks Luddly, I have a link but I also saw a documentary some weeks back. Here's the link:

George R. Tiller News - The New York Times

As you scroll down, you will see more links to him being shot by a woman in his arms and other links to harassment.

Being shot in the arms is not "harrasment", its being shot in the arms.

I hope this is not an attempt to equivocate people who protested outside his clinic peacfully to those who performed violence against the man and his property.

Anti choice protestors are not peaceful. I go to many campaign stops both Republican and Democratic and have seen these groups in action. We also have an abortion clinic downtown in my city close to where I used to work.

These anti choicers get up early in the day and work very long hours walking with their horrendous and violent picket signs, approaching women going into the clinic, yelling ... When there are clashes, it is highly flammable.

I don't see anti choice people as peaceful, sorry.

 

[martybegan]

Thanks Luddly, I have a link but I also saw a documentary some weeks back. Here's the link:

George R. Tiller News - The New York Times

As you scroll down, you will see more links to him being shot by a woman in his arms and other links to harassment.

Being shot in the arms is not "harrasment", its being shot in the arms.

I hope this is not an attempt to equivocate people who protested outside his clinic peacfully to those who performed violence against the man and his property.

Anti choice protestors are not peaceful. I go to many campaign stops both Republican and Democratic and have seen these groups in action. We also have an abortion clinic downtown in my city close to where I used to work.

These anti choicers get up early in the day and work very long hours walking with their horrendous and violent picket signs, approaching women going into the clinic, yelling ... When there are clashes, it is highly flammable.

I don't see anti choice people as peaceful, sorry.

You disagree with thier positions, so you most likely have an inital bias against them.

1st, unless used as a cudgel, how can a sign be "violent"
2nd: Yelling is not violence

Clashes are violence, you have agreement there. anyone lays a hand on someone else its jail time. that goes for throwing crap at people as well.

Passively blocking someone is not violence, but is criminal, and the person should be arrested.

Abortion is a contrversial topic, and will attract demonstrations of great passion. Unless they pass over to violence, actual physical violence, the demonstrations cannot be compared to the murder of Dr. tiller, nor the assaults on him.

 

[Sarah G]

Being shot in the arms is not "harrasment", its being shot in the arms.

I hope this is not an attempt to equivocate people who protested outside his clinic peacfully to those who performed violence against the man and his property.

Anti choice protestors are not peaceful. I go to many campaign stops both Republican and Democratic and have seen these groups in action. We also have an abortion clinic downtown in my city close to where I used to work.

These anti choicers get up early in the day and work very long hours walking with their horrendous and violent picket signs, approaching women going into the clinic, yelling ... When there are clashes, it is highly flammable.

I don't see anti choice people as peaceful, sorry.

You disagree with thier positions, so you most likely have an inital bias against them.

1st, unless used as a cudgel, how can a sign be "violent"
2nd: Yelling is not violence

Clashes are violence, you have agreement there. anyone lays a hand on someone else its jail time. that goes for throwing crap at people as well.

Passively blocking someone is not violence, but is criminal, and the person should be arrested.

Abortion is a contrversial topic, and will attract demonstrations of great passion. Unless they pass over to violence, actual physical violence, the demonstrations cannot be compared to the murder of Dr. tiller, nor the assaults on him.

Their sinage is created to provoke, the reason they show pictures of bloody babies, all of their limbs torn off, faces mutilated, etc. is to provoke violence. I've seen it many times, as soon as a group of pro choicers see them walking with those signs, a clash begins.

When I start hearing the chants, I get away from it.

 

[martybegan]

Anti choice protestors are not peaceful. I go to many campaign stops both Republican and Democratic and have seen these groups in action. We also have an abortion clinic downtown in my city close to where I used to work.

These anti choicers get up early in the day and work very long hours walking with their horrendous and violent picket signs, approaching women going into the clinic, yelling ... When there are clashes, it is highly flammable.

I don't see anti choice people as peaceful, sorry.

You disagree with thier positions, so you most likely have an inital bias against them.

1st, unless used as a cudgel, how can a sign be "violent"
2nd: Yelling is not violence

Clashes are violence, you have agreement there. anyone lays a hand on someone else its jail time. that goes for throwing crap at people as well.

Passively blocking someone is not violence, but is criminal, and the person should be arrested.

Abortion is a contrversial topic, and will attract demonstrations of great passion. Unless they pass over to violence, actual physical violence, the demonstrations cannot be compared to the murder of Dr. tiller, nor the assaults on him.

Their sinage is created to provoke, the reason they show pictures of bloody babies, all of their limbs torn off, faces mutilated, etc. is to provoke violence. I've seen it many times, as soon as a group of pro choicers see them walking with those signs, a clash begins.

When I start hearing the chants, I get away from it.

Of course its meant to provoke, thats what protesting is all about. When the freedom marchers were rambling around the deep south, thier goal was to provoke a response, not to stroll around alabama and be ignored.

In your example, it would appear the pro-choice protestors are the instigators of the physical confrontation.

A question, do you support the use of signs showning mutilated animals, such as those used by PETA, when it comes to anti-fur protests? What about signs showing dismembered Iraqis like those used during the Anti-bush protests?

 

[Sarah G]

You disagree with thier positions, so you most likely have an inital bias against them.

1st, unless used as a cudgel, how can a sign be "violent"
2nd: Yelling is not violence

Clashes are violence, you have agreement there. anyone lays a hand on someone else its jail time. that goes for throwing crap at people as well.

Passively blocking someone is not violence, but is criminal, and the person should be arrested.

Abortion is a contrversial topic, and will attract demonstrations of great passion. Unless they pass over to violence, actual physical violence, the demonstrations cannot be compared to the murder of Dr. tiller, nor the assaults on him.

Their sinage is created to provoke, the reason they show pictures of bloody babies, all of their limbs torn off, faces mutilated, etc. is to provoke violence. I've seen it many times, as soon as a group of pro choicers see them walking with those signs, a clash begins.

When I start hearing the chants, I get away from it.

Of course its meant to provoke, thats what protesting is all about. When the freedom marchers were rambling around the deep south, thier goal was to provoke a response, not to stroll around alabama and be ignored.

In your example, it would appear the pro-choice protestors are the instigators of the physical confrontation.

A question, do you support the use of signs showning mutilated animals, such as those used by PETA, when it comes to anti-fur protests? What about signs showing dismembered Iraqis like those used during the Anti-bush protests?

I would never engage in that behavior but I know there are those who feel it's necessary to make their point. I am non violent, I believe in law, diplomacy and civilized behavior.

I disagree with your premise that there are peaceful anti choice protestors and that they are somehow victims. Dr. Tiller is one example. I was very shocked that so called Christians killed him.

 

[martybegan]

Their sinage is created to provoke, the reason they show pictures of bloody babies, all of their limbs torn off, faces mutilated, etc. is to provoke violence. I've seen it many times, as soon as a group of pro choicers see them walking with those signs, a clash begins.

When I start hearing the chants, I get away from it.

Of course its meant to provoke, thats what protesting is all about. When the freedom marchers were rambling around the deep south, thier goal was to provoke a response, not to stroll around alabama and be ignored.

In your example, it would appear the pro-choice protestors are the instigators of the physical confrontation.

A question, do you support the use of signs showning mutilated animals, such as those used by PETA, when it comes to anti-fur protests? What about signs showing dismembered Iraqis like those used during the Anti-bush protests?

I would never engage in that behavior but I know there are those who feel it's necessary to make their point. I am non violent, I believe in law, diplomacy and civilized behavior.

I disagree with your premise that there are peaceful anti choice protestors and that they are somehow victims. Dr. Tiller is one example. I was very shocked that so called Christians killed him.

One so called Christian killed him, its wrong to paint others who did not commit the act with the brush of murder.

Peaceful protest does not mean passive protest. If the anti-abortion rights protestors were attacked soley for having some vulgar signs, that would make them victims.

It is easy to believe in law, diplomacy, and civilized behavior when you are on the side of the existing condition, i.e. abortion being legal. When you are on the other side? I would think not as much.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can you please supply a link to prove this ? This is the CDZ.

Sure thing -

Start with this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...the-murder-of-dr-george-tiller-justified.html

If that's not enough, do a search on this internet board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/

There are many posts on both that support that statement. Indeed, I'd bet you wrote many of them yourself.

All that really matters though are these two facts:

1. Abortion is legal.
2. Its none of their business.

Nice talkin'' to ya.

Are all forms of abortion legal ?

The rest do not support your assertions.

You use the same trick with every post.

First you demand proof of something you already know is true. Then, you change the subject or move the goal posts. I won't play your game.

Nothing will change two facts:

Abortion is legal
Its no one's business except the woman having the abortion.

 

[Listening]

Sure thing -

Start with this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...the-murder-of-dr-george-tiller-justified.html

If that's not enough, do a search on this internet board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/

There are many posts on both that support that statement. Indeed, I'd bet you wrote many of them yourself.

All that really matters though are these two facts:

1. Abortion is legal.
2. Its none of their business.

Nice talkin'' to ya.

Are all forms of abortion legal ?

The rest do not support your assertions.

You use the same trick with every post.

First you demand proof of something you already know is true. Then, you change the subject or move the goal posts. I won't play your game.

Nothing will change two facts:

Abortion is legal
Its no one's business except the woman having the abortion.

I am simply asking you to support your assertions. This the CDZ, not an opinion forum.

You said abortion is legal. Either define abortion or assert that every form of abortion is legal.

As to it being no one's business. Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly regulated and will continue to be.

 

[Mertex]

Are all forms of abortion legal ?

The rest do not support your assertions.

You use the same trick with every post.

First you demand proof of something you already know is true. Then, you change the subject or move the goal posts. I won't play your game.

Nothing will change two facts:

Abortion is legal
Its no one's business except the woman having the abortion.

I am simply asking you to support your assertions. This the CDZ, not an opinion forum.

You said abortion is legal. Either define abortion or assert that every form of abortion is legal.

As to it being no one's business. Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly regulated and will continue to be.

Just because this is the CDZ doesn't mean that you don't post your opinions. You need to read the rules of the CDZ again....civil discourse is the focus...constructive criticism and debate is the tone....no negative repping, no insulting, name-calling or putting down other posters. Differing with your opinion is not name-calling nor putting down other posters.

And, abortion is legal. That states have different regulations is no secret.....surely you don't want her listing all the different regulations. And, yes, it is highly regulated, but still there are those who want to do away with the whole thing. No regard for the pregnant woman's life at risk, or incest and rape. That's a fact.

So, what is your point?

 

[Papageorgio]

The taking of a life is not justified, whether it is a so called "doctor" performing abortions or a "christian" killing a baby killer.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You use the same trick with every post.

First you demand proof of something you already know is true. Then, you change the subject or move the goal posts. I won't play your game.

Nothing will change two facts:

Abortion is legal
Its no one's business except the woman having the abortion.

I am simply asking you to support your assertions. This the CDZ, not an opinion forum.

You said abortion is legal. Either define abortion or assert that every form of abortion is legal.

As to it being no one's business. Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly regulated and will continue to be.

Just because this is the CDZ doesn't mean that you don't post your opinions. You need to read the rules of the CDZ again....civil discourse is the focus...constructive criticism and debate is the tone....no negative repping, no insulting, name-calling or putting down other posters. Differing with your opinion is not name-calling nor putting down other posters.

And, abortion is legal. That states have different regulations is no secret.....surely you don't want her listing all the different regulations. And, yes, it is highly regulated, but still there are those who want to do away with the whole thing. No regard for the pregnant woman's life at risk, or incest and rape. That's a fact.

So, what is your point?

Thanks. I've never seen anything in writing from admin or mods about opinions not being allowed here. Besides, "Listening" has posted his/her opinions here with almost every post.

Regs vary from state to state. Even if I was so inclined, who knows what could be meant by types or forms of abortion. If he or she wants to list types or forms of abortion, he or she can have it but its not something I would have any interest in.

It IS legal and we need to make sure it stays legal. IMO.

And, the ownership of one's own body, is, IMO, sacrosanct. What a man or woman chooses to do with their own body is no one else's business. IMO.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

His murder proved what we all know - anti-freedom, anti-choice people are also anti-people. They don't really care about fetuses except as a tool of hate.

They hate human beings and especially have little care for children.

You don't prove life is valued and sacred by taking lives or starving children, handicapped, disabled vets, elderly. It just doesn't work that way.

Why is it necessary for you to shut down every debate this way? Are you truly so lacking in logic that you can't destroy an argument via its own merits or lack thereof? Do you really have to avoid the discussion altogether by assigning horribly negative (and often, daresay usually, hyperbolic and incorrect) motives to the source of the argument with the unspoken implication that even discussing the offending point is beneath you?

Are you even smart enough to realize that this is essentially a rhetorical escape method? You're creating a smokescreen when you do this to allow you to escape the discussion altogether. When you fire off accusations like this, you're literally hiding from the discussions on which you choose to post. So why even bother to speak? It boggles my mind.

It's like arguing with a 6 year old. "I'm right, and I know why I'm right, but I'm just not gonna tell you cuz you're too stupid." I feel like you should end these posts with nanny nanny boo boo.

 

[Listening]

I am simply asking you to support your assertions. This the CDZ, not an opinion forum.

You said abortion is legal. Either define abortion or assert that every form of abortion is legal.

As to it being no one's business. Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly regulated and will continue to be.

Just because this is the CDZ doesn't mean that you don't post your opinions. You need to read the rules of the CDZ again....civil discourse is the focus...constructive criticism and debate is the tone....no negative repping, no insulting, name-calling or putting down other posters. Differing with your opinion is not name-calling nor putting down other posters.

And, abortion is legal. That states have different regulations is no secret.....surely you don't want her listing all the different regulations. And, yes, it is highly regulated, but still there are those who want to do away with the whole thing. No regard for the pregnant woman's life at risk, or incest and rape. That's a fact.

So, what is your point?

Thanks. I've never seen anything in writing from admin or mods about opinions not being allowed here. Besides, "Listening" has posted his/her opinions here with almost every post.

Regs vary from state to state. Even if I was so inclined, who knows what could be meant by types or forms of abortion. If he or she wants to list types or forms of abortion, he or she can have it but its not something I would have any interest in.

It IS legal and we need to make sure it stays legal. IMO.

And, the ownership of one's own body, is, IMO, sacrosanct. What a man or woman chooses to do with their own body is no one else's business. IMO.

Which might mean some forms of abortion are not legal or are restricted.

Just pointing that out.

That would not be an opinion by the way. It is easily verified to the affirmative or negative.

 

[Mertex]

The taking of a life is not justified, whether it is a so called "doctor" performing abortions or a "christian" killing a baby killer.

So, are you saying that if a pregnant woman's life is at risk, it would not be justifiable for her to choose to abort? Her choosing to abort in order to live is not justifiable in your mind because she would be killing a baby?

 

[arKangel]

Now that self defense has been called into question...
What about defending innocents from homicide?

To those who use the old "life of the mother" (which is statistically null) "argument"
I repeat

You see someone stabbing a baby with a knife.

You have a loaded firearm.

What do you do?

The ****** says "kill the baby".

 

[SayMyName]

Do you believe the person who shot and killed the abortion doctor was justified in doing so.

Murder is never justifiable.

 

[Listening]

Just because this is the CDZ doesn't mean that you don't post your opinions. You need to read the rules of the CDZ again....civil discourse is the focus...constructive criticism and debate is the tone....no negative repping, no insulting, name-calling or putting down other posters. Differing with your opinion is not name-calling nor putting down other posters.

And, abortion is legal. That states have different regulations is no secret.....surely you don't want her listing all the different regulations. And, yes, it is highly regulated, but still there are those who want to do away with the whole thing. No regard for the pregnant woman's life at risk, or incest and rape. That's a fact.

So, what is your point?

Thanks. I've never seen anything in writing from admin or mods about opinions not being allowed here. Besides, "Listening" has posted his/her opinions here with almost every post.

Regs vary from state to state. Even if I was so inclined, who knows what could be meant by types or forms of abortion. If he or she wants to list types or forms of abortion, he or she can have it but its not something I would have any interest in.

It IS legal and we need to make sure it stays legal. IMO.

And, the ownership of one's own body, is, IMO, sacrosanct. What a man or woman chooses to do with their own body is no one else's business. IMO.

Which might mean some forms of abortion are not legal or are restricted.

Just pointing that out.

That would not be an opinion by the way. It is easily verified to the affirmative or negative.

And yet another example of the board coward dropping one of his turds and leaving. You think he really cares about what others think ? He's an idiot.