Was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justified?

[Listening]

"Why don't women," - they don't.

You have a very low opinion of women.

Christian women have abortions. Did you know that. Married women abort their spouse's git.

I have low opinion of women who refuse to be responsible for their choice to engage in unprotected sex and then resort to killing an innocent life because of that bad choice.

You on the other hand give a pass to women who make bad decisions then choose to take a human life.

Are you asserting that all abortions are based on bad decisions on a woman's part?

Hey, before you ask that...why don't ask what the OP is asserting ?

 

[Asclepias]

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..

 

[Listening]

He was a doctor that took innocent lives.

Why don't women simply choose not to spread their legs for every Tom, Dick and Harry?

It sounds like your in favor of taking an innocent life to make up for bad decisions.

FTR Tiller made his living performing late-term abortions, something you seem to be against yet you defend.

"Why don't women," - they don't.

You have a very low opinion of women.

Christian women have abortions. Did you know that. Married women abort their spouse's git.

I have low opinion of women who refuse to be responsible for their choice to engage in unprotected sex and then resort to killing an innocent life because of that bad choice.

You on the other hand give a pass to women who make bad decisions then choose to take a human life.

I have a low opinion of men who engage said women.

I also have a low opinion of our unwillingness to make these men pay for the consequences of their choices too.

It's one of the reasons I'd love to see Social Security personalized (as opposed to privatized). Deadbeat dad...we know just where to get the money mom needs to raise your kid.

 

[Mertex]

Obamacare is better. Not being able to deny people by trumping up excuses such as pre-existing conditions is a big plus, not to mention "affordable" so that many who couldnt afford it now can. Also, being able to keep your college students on parent's policy is also a big plus. Anyone who claims that what we had was better is either on Medicare, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves (because they happen to have a good policy).

Better than what ?

Than what we had before.....

The whole problem with this debate is that claims like this are all geared towards a particular point of view.

Right now, Obamacare is all but non-existant.

If it was non-existant, Republican/conservatives wouldn't be stepping all over themselves trying to do away with it.

Let's be clear, all states have insurance commissioners. Insurance is highly regulated. If people could be dropped, it was only because the government allowed it. This has been a travesty from the start.

You live in fantasyland. Even if government was allowing people to be dropped, it was because there was no law to stop them, Obamacare does that. Insurance companies will no longer be able to invent reasons that make sense only to them, for dropping people.

Companies being forced to carry kids longer is no gain. Somebody pays for that. You might keep your child on there longer, but you will pay for others being on there longer....well after your kids are off your policy. No gain there.

Of course somebody pays for that...that's the way most insurance works, and the fact that they were not able to do that before only benefitted the insurance companies. Safe drivers pay for reckless drivers, doesn't mean that your insurance isn't necessary just because you happen to be a safe driver.

Your last statement is nothing but a judgement. Pray tell, just how do you know whoi or what others care for or don't ? I'd be really interested to know the secret of your insights.

I guess you've never heard of "action speaks louder than words"?
******************

Having said that, I was originally addressing the weak arguments put forth in your post.

This thread is about Tiller's murder (although I still don't see the "debate" in any of this....it's just an opinion thread).

I've resurrected some threads on Obamacare.

I don't know who brought Obamacare up, the reason I commented was because I was just debating your inane comments.

As for the topic of the OP, the debate is whether you think his murder was justified. Sure, posters are just providing their opinions, but the debate is in the difference of opinions.

 

[Listening]

Obamacare is better. Not being able to deny people by trumping up excuses such as pre-existing conditions is a big plus, not to mention "affordable" so that many who couldnt afford it now can. Also, being able to keep your college students on parent's policy is also a big plus. Anyone who claims that what we had was better is either on Medicare, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves (because they happen to have a good policy).

Better than what ?

Than what we had before.....


If it was non-existant, Republican/conservatives wouldn't be stepping all over themselves trying to do away with it.


You live in fantasyland. Even if government was allowing people to be dropped, it was because there was no law to stop them, Obamacare does that. Insurance companies will no longer be able to invent reasons that make sense only to them, for dropping people.


Of course somebody pays for that...that's the way most insurance works, and the fact that they were not able to do that before only benefitted the insurance companies. Safe drivers pay for reckless drivers, doesn't mean that your insurance isn't necessary just because you happen to be a safe driver.

Your last statement is nothing but a judgement. Pray tell, just how do you know whoi or what others care for or don't ? I'd be really interested to know the secret of your insights.

I guess you've never heard of "action speaks louder than words"?
******************

Having said that, I was originally addressing the weak arguments put forth in your post.

This thread is about Tiller's murder (although I still don't see the "debate" in any of this....it's just an opinion thread).

I've resurrected some threads on Obamacare.

I don't know who brought Obamacare up, the reason I commented was because I was just debating your inane comments.

As for the topic of the OP, the debate is whether you think his murder was justified. Sure, posters are just providing their opinions, but the debate is in the difference of opinions.

If you want to debate Obamacare, then move to the other threads I've resurrected.

 

[Mertex]

Better than what ?

Than what we had before.....


If it was non-existant, Republican/conservatives wouldn't be stepping all over themselves trying to do away with it.


You live in fantasyland. Even if government was allowing people to be dropped, it was because there was no law to stop them, Obamacare does that. Insurance companies will no longer be able to invent reasons that make sense only to them, for dropping people.


Of course somebody pays for that...that's the way most insurance works, and the fact that they were not able to do that before only benefitted the insurance companies. Safe drivers pay for reckless drivers, doesn't mean that your insurance isn't necessary just because you happen to be a safe driver.

I guess you've never heard of "action speaks louder than words"?
******************

Having said that, I was originally addressing the weak arguments put forth in your post.

This thread is about Tiller's murder (although I still don't see the "debate" in any of this....it's just an opinion thread).

I've resurrected some threads on Obamacare.

I don't know who brought Obamacare up, the reason I commented was because I was just debating your inane comments.

As for the topic of the OP, the debate is whether you think his murder was justified. Sure, posters are just providing their opinions, but the debate is in the difference of opinions.

If you want to debate Obamacare, then move to the other threads I've resurrected.

Like I said, I was just debating your XXXXXXX comments that you made on this thread regarding Obamacare. XXXXXXX

 

[cereal_killer]

Back on topic folks..thank you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He was a doctor that took innocent lives.

Why don't women simply choose not to spread their legs for every Tom, Dick and Harry?

It sounds like your in favor of taking an innocent life to make up for bad decisions.

FTR Tiller made his living performing late-term abortions, something you seem to be against yet you defend.

"Why don't women," - they don't.

You have a very low opinion of women.

Christian women have abortions. Did you know that. Married women abort their spouse's git.

I have low opinion of women who refuse to be responsible for their choice to engage in unprotected sex and then resort to killing an innocent life because of that bad choice.

You on the other hand give a pass to women who make bad decisions then choose to take a human life.

One at liberty to have a ‘low opinion of women,’ but thankfully one is not at liberty to attempt to codify it.

 

[Listening]

"Why don't women," - they don't.

You have a very low opinion of women.

Christian women have abortions. Did you know that. Married women abort their spouse's git.

I have low opinion of women who refuse to be responsible for their choice to engage in unprotected sex and then resort to killing an innocent life because of that bad choice.

You on the other hand give a pass to women who make bad decisions then choose to take a human life.

One at liberty to have a ‘low opinion of women,’ but thankfully one is not at liberty to attempt to codify it.

Sounds like the supreme court just disagreed with you to a small degree.

 

[Intense]

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

No.

 

[FA_Q2]

You could not be more wrong.

Most abortions are medically necessary. Its a terrible and sad tragedy when a couple loses a baby. Honestly, I hope you never have to stand in a hospital corridor and make that decision about the baby you so desperately wanted.

Outright false. I really tire of this falsehood put forth by those that advocate for legal abortion. At the very least we should all bother to be honest about what we are supporting: the killing of the unborn for convenience. That is what the majority of abortions are.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
(a total of three answers were allowed to be given so the totals are over 100%)
A whopping 74% is because “Having a baby would dramatically change my life” and 73% “Can’t afford a baby now” while a scant 13% was for health of the baby and 12% for health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience. Further, rape is 1% and incest 0.5% (both LESS than the amount of third trimester abortions at 1.5% btw) so those 2 issues are not even relevant. Only 14% stated they did not get enough support from the father and 48 because they were not in a stable relationship.


I support the right to abort because I advocate for freedom. Having the government control an individual to that level is abhorrent to me but then again I also think that late terms abortions should be illegal unless there is a medical necessity. I will say that I would never perform such a procedure though if I were a doctor. I am not sure I am capable of such a thing after having my children. The entire concept is absolutely abhorrent to me.

As far as the OP goes, there is no justification for murder in any circumstances. We live in a nation of laws and it is through those laws that those against abortion should fight the practice. The murderer did the nation and the people that are against abortion a HUGE disservice as the doctor shot is memorialized and those fighting the act look like nuts.

What kind of justification are you making reference to ?

The OP is a question.

Somehow the legality of "killing" does not get the same kind of treatment when you bring up the subject of Gearge Zimmerman. He didn't commit murder (according the law).

The answer to the question about Tillers murder is, of course, that the killer was (as he should have been) tried as per the law. There would have been no grounds on which to avoid that trial.

The justification for Tiller’s murderer. I realize that the OP used the term ‘killing’ and the terms are different but it is accurate to call this a murder ergo ‘unjustified.’ The Zimmerman case has absolutely zero bearing on this particular situation. There are times when killing is justified and those times almost always (and I use almost only because definitive terms are a bad idea with things like this) predicated on immediate danger to yourself or others. Just like the Zimmerman case cited.

 

[FA_Q2]

What if the woman will die with a live fetus inside her?

Suppose we had a law that said abortion ONLY when the woman is in danger of dying from the pregnancy. No exceptions.

For one thing, cases like this could happen while people were arguing over whether the threat to the mother's health met the legal bar:

BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital



And even if that standard were followed without fault and no woman was ever allowed to die from not having an abortion, there are other complications to consider. What if a woman would become disabled or infertile waiting for a nonviable child to find its way out of her body on its own?

This is why we use something with a wider definition: medical necessity. Far simpler as it covers a wide range of possibilities. Anything that is narrower than that is almost guaranteed to fail in some instances and that cannot be allowed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Karen Santorum did not have an induced abortion of a healthy fetus. Technically it was a septic involuntary abortion. The fetus had died and became infected. The infection from the dead fetus was spreading and would have killed her.

Why was it okay for her to have an abortion? Now you know.

Is that your spin on it? Because this article tells a different story. The fetus had not died, but there was the possibility that she might have if they didn't induce labor to what was a non-viable fetus.

This is interesting because I believe Santorum supports a bill that does not allow women to have an abortion even when their lives are at risk, but when it came to his wife, he was okay with it? And Karen, admitted, that if it came down to the wire, where her life was in danger, she would have allowed it because of her other children. Hmmmmmmmm, more hyporicsy.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.

Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different | Our Silver Blog

Everyone's abortion is different.

Even though more than 2/3rds are medically necessary the final word on the subject must be that its no one's business except the woman's.

Even if ALL abortions were because of "convenience", we each own our own body and that fact ends all argument.

Its stunning to me that here, in the US, there is any discussion about taking basic rights away from women. I also believe that if it were men whose rights were being discussed, there would be nothing to discuss.

The Santorum's abortion was not different and how dare they say that other women, other families just want to get rid of a minor inconvenience.

Again, this is a bald faces LIE. I already provided the relevant information from the Guttmacher institute (certainly NOT a RW biased source) pointing out that fact. Here it is AGAIN:
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Health reasons were cited as:

health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).

Hardly 2/3. Add to that the fact that women were allowed to make more than one selection (72% actually selected at LEAST 3 reasons) some of those are going to be overlaps. Even more telling is this:

Concerns about personal health included chronic and life-threatening conditions such as depression, advanced maternal age and toxemia. More commonly, however, women cited feeling too ill during the pregnancy to work or take care of their children.

That essentially means that these were not necessarily diagnosed health problems but in many cases worries without any diagnosis at all or simply normal instances of feeling sick or tired during pregnancy. The best part though was this gem:

…more than one-third of interview respondents said they had considered adoption and concluded that it was a morally unconscionable option because giving one's child away is wrong.

Really! Giving a child away is wrong but ending its existence before birth A OK!!!! That is the most convoluted leap of logic that I have ever seen and there are some doozies that have been put forth here on these boards. It even beats the dog/human babies…

I has always assumed that they did not go that route simply because child bearing sucks and is only worth it for the child at the end. Apparently many people actually think it is wrong…………????

 

[Listening]

Outright false. I really tire of this falsehood put forth by those that advocate for legal abortion. At the very least we should all bother to be honest about what we are supporting: the killing of the unborn for convenience. That is what the majority of abortions are.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
(a total of three answers were allowed to be given so the totals are over 100%)
A whopping 74% is because “Having a baby would dramatically change my life” and 73% “Can’t afford a baby now” while a scant 13% was for health of the baby and 12% for health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience. Further, rape is 1% and incest 0.5% (both LESS than the amount of third trimester abortions at 1.5% btw) so those 2 issues are not even relevant. Only 14% stated they did not get enough support from the father and 48 because they were not in a stable relationship.


I support the right to abort because I advocate for freedom. Having the government control an individual to that level is abhorrent to me but then again I also think that late terms abortions should be illegal unless there is a medical necessity. I will say that I would never perform such a procedure though if I were a doctor. I am not sure I am capable of such a thing after having my children. The entire concept is absolutely abhorrent to me.

As far as the OP goes, there is no justification for murder in any circumstances. We live in a nation of laws and it is through those laws that those against abortion should fight the practice. The murderer did the nation and the people that are against abortion a HUGE disservice as the doctor shot is memorialized and those fighting the act look like nuts.

What kind of justification are you making reference to ?

The OP is a question.

Somehow the legality of "killing" does not get the same kind of treatment when you bring up the subject of Gearge Zimmerman. He didn't commit murder (according the law).

The answer to the question about Tillers murder is, of course, that the killer was (as he should have been) tried as per the law. There would have been no grounds on which to avoid that trial.

The justification for Tiller’s murderer. I realize that the OP used the term ‘killing’ and the terms are different but it is accurate to call this a murder ergo ‘unjustified.’ The Zimmerman case has absolutely zero bearing on this particular situation. There are times when killing is justified and those times almost always (and I use almost only because definitive terms are a bad idea with things like this) predicated on immediate danger to yourself or others. Just like the Zimmerman case cited.

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).

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.).

 

[arKangel]

...Now that the smoke's gone
And the air is all clear
Those who were right there
Got a new kind of fear
You'd fight and you were right
But they were just to strong
They'd stick it in your face
And let you smell what they consider wrong
That's why I say hey man nice, nice shot
What a good shot man

 

[freedombecki]

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

No.

You're right, as usual.

 

[freedombecki]

XXXXXXX
Killing a civilian is not a good idea. Killing the child is wrong, unless the life of the mother by the stress of childbirth is certain or if she was wrongfully impregnated by a rapist who forced himself on her, imho. Driving people to have sex outside of marriage is a bad idea. Yet nobody in this country examines what the public is fed on television for fear of being "politically incorrect."

This is just a complex problem, but killing 1.3 million babies a year is a little worse than treating a mentally immature human being for wrongful behavior. That number in and of itself wreaks of using an extreme measure in the place of avoiding the responsibility of raising a child as a weight against humanity. Life either means something or it doesn't. If you practice indoctrinating young women into killing early enough, you're just eating society's liver to cure a scar on the liver. It doesn't make good sense, especially when you hold other members of society liable for the medical costs of other people's selfish lifestyles.

Make the rugrats pay for their own carpets. Quit robbing intelligent people to foster more ignorance in the world. As Mammie in Gone with the Wind said, "It just ain't fittin'."

 

[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.

 

[Asclepias]

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?.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.