Kansas abortion doc killed in church

Post Reply New Topic

I condemn the killing of Tiller, however, one cannot overlook how many innocent babies have died in his clinics.I am pro-life, but condemn this act which was carried out by a fringe radical nutjob.He has done more harm than good for prolifers and he should share the same fate as Tiller.

Right but who is going to kill the executioner? I think you got yourself into a killing loop there.

The executioner doesn't have to die to be punished. Some paths in our justice system can actually lead to worse fates anyway. Also, I don't think Tory's post was advocating killing the executioner.

From the pure logic standpoint, Tory's condemnation of the killing is completely in-line with his moral stance. The logic disconnect is among pro-life people who feel anything but sorrow over this additional death. If they espouse the belief that this victim "got what he deserved", if they relish the killing, or if they sport indifference, then they are not in line with the pro-life belief ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life ). They may have a different belief (and I am not making judgments here), but they cannot claim to be in line with the pro-life movement or refer to themselves as pro-life. It is that simple.

I agree. The "pure" pro-life position, as originated in the writings of Pope John Paul II (and I hope this fits in with the Wiki entry which I did not read; I'm speaking to the history as I've absorbed and lived it), is conception to grave, opposes all forms of capital punishment, and acknowledges a need to provide social services to those unable to live to a certain basic standard on their own.

Funny how all the rest got lost in the politics and passion of the movement.

Politics: which, quite frankly, Pope John Paul II never mentioned if I recall the writings correctly. He spoke to a goal, not a singular route on how to get there.

Even though I am politically pro-choice for what I feel are very good reasons, I realized when Pope John Paul II passed away that his vision for the world, when you considered it in it's entirety, was quite beautiful. I realized I would gladly trade "legal" abortion for a society that truly cared for and took care of it's own; in many ways, that society would eliminate the issues that lead to abortion in the first place. Pretty much all my liberal friends agreed. The trade offs were worth it. Who couldn't I get to agree? The people calling themselves pro-life and arguing conservative positions. I was floored.

With Jack Kavorkian, he got off on several occassions by hung juries. He never got a suspended sentence.

Judges do not give suspended sentences where some kind of homicide is being tried. They may give minimal sentences, but homicide is too serious to suspend.

ruveyn

Well, advocating policies is a form of politics in my book (policy + polity = politics). It is obviously not ordinary partisan politics, but it is politics.

No he didn't. Who says the executioner should be killed?

It's perfectly reasonable to argue for a view that you don't hold, for example, if someone is saying that a certain position says one thing when it really says another, or if someone is attempting to debunk the position with a strawman argument.


That's a misrepresentation of absolute morality. According to absolute morality, there are certain moral principles that are absolute -- but there are also more than one such principle.

For example, if you have absolute moral principles that murder is wrong, but self-defense is not, then it's obvious what to do if someone is trying to kill you. It is not so obvious if you're a prison guard in a tower during a prison riot, when the inmates are in the yard acting belligerent, but aren't armed as far as you can tell. Even with absolute moral principles, the answer is not always clear-cut.

I just had a thought when re-reading zero's post. Zero, by "executioner" did you mean "the nutjob who killed Tiller" or did you mean the literal executioner as in "the person who kills the nutjob who killed Tiller". We might just be misunderstanding what you meant there... If you meant the person who kills the nutjob, then what I said was valid -- otherwise I (and a couple others) have misunderstood you since you used "executioner" in place of "murderer" in order to invoke a particular image. Please clarify.

Additionally, Tory, if your last sentence means the nutjob should be subjected to capital punishment (rather than life w/o parole), then you are not in line with the official Pro-Life stance against capital punishment making you not "Pro-Life". You could be "Pro-Life with exceptions", but this makes your position harder to understand. I was making some assumptions and may have caused some confusion.

He also beatified+canonised somebody who died because she refused to have abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

I don't critisise him for playing the devil's advocate. I understand how debate works. It is actualy a strawman to tar everone with the same brush though. That was my point.


Who said otherwise? The positions are still absolute, though.

If someone comes to the same fate as tiller. Then somebody has to kill tiller murderer in the same manner, so therefore it is natural to assume he would that that killer to come to the same fate given that it is the same fate....

it depend where in the UK sometimes thy police do not prepare the case to go to court go to court. There have also been parent who acted alone killing their child, even though the child was not complicit. In those cases they got sent down, but with some diminished responsibility hinted. There was an ex-service man (I believe Special Air Service) who did that. It was not clear as to whether he killed his son because of not wanting to have to live though his disease or some sort of internal conflict over weakness, related to mental problems.

They are about to review the law on people travelling abroad to die. At the moment there relative that assist them get arrested, this may end shortly. The issue is in the House of Lords now.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 09 Jun 2009, 5:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kevorkian was vilified. I have a lot of respect for the man. Fortunately Philip Nitschke was able to pick up the baton. many because some people viewed Kevorkian as cold, which is not true, but Nitschke has a personality that more people like. That is what it is about really PR.

Oh! I got it. You replied like it was absolutely literal. Sorry, Zero, I retract my disagreement with your statement. If that is what Tory meant, then I understand what you mean; someone must commit another murder (i.e. without trial or due process) by killing the nutjob.