Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Raw Video: George Tiller Murder Suspect in Custody
FOX KC ^ | 5.31.09 | Sarah Clark

Posted on 05/31/2009 2:16:58 PM PDT by libh8er

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: Russ

I’m not Lutheran. Tell me more.


51 posted on 05/31/2009 6:07:53 PM PDT by Mercat (The Constitution is not a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: nitzy
What if it was neither vengeance nor punishment but protection. The cops had been called, the courts had been petitioned, the congressmen had been voted for the peaceful protesters protested, the righteous prayed yet none of them would save the life of the child who was going to die on Monday morning by this man's hands. How can we condemn the man who possibly saved the life of a child?

It truly gives much to reflect on...I have typed a number of responses, and then deleted them...All I can say again is that it gives us much to reflect on. We are at the hand of God and I will not fully understand until I get to sit at his side.

53 posted on 05/31/2009 6:58:34 PM PDT by IrishPennant (RLT = Radical Left Terrorism...feel it????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It is remarkable that some of these people have faith and worship God. Whatever do they say in prayer? Maybe he believed he was doing the Lord’s work. Who was more whacked - the murderer who champions life then shoots the abortionist or the abortionist who kills 6 days a week and goes to pray to Jesus on Sunday? This irony is hard to manufacture.


54 posted on 05/31/2009 7:02:54 PM PDT by Titus-Maximus (Joe Biden: Once you get past the lead taste, paint chips are pretty good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
In fact, Tiller has been the victim perpetrator of violence murder multiple thousands times.

No good editors left these days, I'm telling ya.

55 posted on 05/31/2009 8:38:49 PM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

“I think Tiller went to Hell.”

That’s my guess too. But we’re not supposed to judge that particular issue.


56 posted on 05/31/2009 9:05:27 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

It’s a terrible sin to save a babys life?


57 posted on 05/31/2009 9:07:46 PM PDT by securityman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Police have identified him as Scott Roeder. Apparently he has connections to Operation Rescue.”

That sucks. He has deeply damaged the pro-life movement.


58 posted on 05/31/2009 9:08:30 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

“I don’t even believe in the death penalty so it is very difficult to come to this conclusion. This was a preemptive act that possibly saved lives.”

So is walking thru the Alvarado district in LA and gunning down every black or hispanic man standing on a street corner selling drugs. They are selling death to kids. Plus, a certain number of them will gun down other folks in the next month.

Doesn’t make it right.


59 posted on 05/31/2009 9:15:10 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: securityman

“It’s a terrible sin to save a babys life?”

By assassinating a man who is obeying the law? Yes.


60 posted on 05/31/2009 9:17:58 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker; nitzy
So is walking thru the Alvarado district in LA and gunning down every black or hispanic man standing on a street corner selling drugs. They are selling death to kids. Plus, a certain number of them will gun down other folks in the next month.

Your error is that you're equating a statistical possibility (gunning down every black or hispanic [sic] man to prevent a possible death) with the actual prevention of deaths by someone who is in the business of killing. In the first case, you may or may not prevent a death. In the second case, the actual practice of killing is permanently interrupted.
61 posted on 05/31/2009 9:21:28 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“Your error is that you’re equating a statistical possibility (gunning down every black or hispanic [sic] man to prevent a possible death) with the actual prevention of deaths by someone who is in the business of killing. In the first case, you may or may not prevent a death. In the second case, the actual practice of killing is permanently interrupted.”

Nope, given my hypothetical, I only posited gunning down men selling drugs on street corners, not “every black and hispanic man.” On that hypothetical, that you will prevent deaths is a statistical certainty. Those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist. They sell death and death results with certainty.

The mechanism of how the death occurs is a little different, and certainly the victims are not as innocent (usually) as unborn babies. On the other hand, the drug dealers are violating the law while Tiller was obeying the law, passed by duly elected representatives, hideous as that law is.

But you are deeply into situational ethics as soon as you start distinguishing between murder in these two situations. Down that path lies Charlie Manson.

The only principled out is to declare the US and State governments who authorize and pay for the killing of babies illegitimate and start a revolution. I’m not ready to go there. Are you?


62 posted on 05/31/2009 11:44:21 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Equating Tiller to a drug dealer is completely off base. If you asked the drug dealer on Sunday night what he would be doing on Monday morning, he would not tell you he was going to sell drugs. He certainly would not tell you he was going to kill someone. Tiller told anyone who could hear that he was going to work on Monday morning to dismember a child. There was no guessing involved. There wasn't a "good chance" that he was going to kill someone. It was a certainty.

What if Tiller said openly that he was going to work to kill YOUR child on Monday morning? What if you called the cops, congress and the courts and they all said there was nothing they could do about it? Would you would take action yourself to prevent it? Morally, does it make a difference that it is someone else's kid and not yours?

Believe me, I would much rather tow the party line and not feel the way I do. It would be much easier. Unfortunately, reason is preventing me from seeing it any other way.

63 posted on 06/01/2009 2:02:40 AM PDT by nitzy (Take your pick: Globalism OR Limited Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Correct, we are not supposed to judge.
BUT that is what people do as a result of their interests and experiences.


64 posted on 06/01/2009 2:36:52 AM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

He didn’t do the movement any good that’s for sure.
But he did accomplish two things;
Other abortion providers should and will think twice.
At the very least, Tiller is not going to be killing any more babies.


65 posted on 06/01/2009 2:38:40 AM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
Whatever do they say in prayer?

I have no idea. But I can think of few people more in need of redemption. Maybe deep down he knew that?

66 posted on 06/01/2009 4:00:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

“If you asked the drug dealer on Sunday night what he would be doing on Monday morning, he would not tell you he was going to sell drugs. He certainly would not tell you he was going to kill someone.”

That kind of depends on whether he thinks you are a cop.

In any event, don’t see how what he says makes any difference on the moral issue. Suppose Tiller had been the strong, silent type. But still went to the office every morning and killed babies. Is it not OK to assassinate him in that case? But OK if he’s a loudmouth? That’s just silly.

The world is a better place without Tiller. But that doesn’t make it morally acceptable to assassinate him. Same with drug dealers. That “some people just need killin’” doesn’t mean we should.


67 posted on 06/01/2009 5:02:44 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Nope, given my hypothetical, I only posited gunning down men selling drugs on street corners, not “every black and hispanic man.” On that hypothetical, that you will prevent deaths is a statistical certainty. Those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist. They sell death and death results with certainty.

No, I was giving your hypothetical, my abbreviated quotation was not being used to change the meaning and, therefore, the premise of the argument. Again, you're incorrect because of a false equivalency: "those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist." They are not in the "business of killing" and they are not "just like an abortionist." Though it is true that some people involved with the illegal drug trade kill or are killed (rival drug gangs accounting for the majority of all the deaths), die accidentally (self-administered overdose), die at a premature age due to impaired health, such an equivalency would require equivalency in both outcome and intent.

Intent: Neither the providers nor the purchasers of illegal drugs are providing their product with the intent to kill someone any more than any other producer or consumer of a product or service (other than do-it-yourself suicide kits, including razor blades, rope, guns, vehicles, and a wide variety of pills, both OTC and prescription) are selling or purchasing for the purpose of killing anyone (though vehicle, gun, rope, and pharmaceutical companies are not producing or marketing their products for the purpose of killing someone).

Outcome: The majority of deaths in the illegal drug industry are between rival gangs vying for a customer base by trying to kill off each other. The majority of deaths in the abortion industry are not between rival abortionists trying to eliminate the competition. Some deaths in the illegal drug industry are accidental (mostly due to overdose). There are some accidental deaths in the abortion industry resulting in the demise of customers along with their intended victim.

The majority of deaths in the abortion industry, though, happens because the provider and the consumer are both intentionally working together to cause the death. That is the primary reason for their relationship, not a secondary or accidental outcome.

If the abortion industry is to be compared accurately to an illegal enterprise, it should be compared to hiring a hit man to get rid of someone you don't like. In both the primary purpose is to kill someone. In both, the provider is deliberately trying to terminate a life.
68 posted on 06/01/2009 5:21:52 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson