Abortionist Tiller's Murder in Perspective

[ApologeticJedi]

Let's even pretend they are just about to begin an abortion procedure and the threat to the fetus is imminent.

Any theist who agrees with this assertion [the right of escalation of force in self-defense], feel free to chime in as well to the above hypothetical.

So for instance, I'm in the room, and the mother can't be talked out of it, and the abortionist is leaning down to start the procedure --- would I grab a scalpel off the table and slit the throat of a defenseless person?

No.

Leathal force seems way, way over the top. It's not like they are armed SS agents anyway.

If you simply must choose to escalate to violence to save the life of the baby I would think punching the abortionist's teeth in makes for a fine smaller escalation of force. I'm sure once one of his pearly whites hits the floor the procedure will be basically over for the day. If one is smart it can probably be stopped without resorting to much or any violence at all.

However, if you really want to save the life the only real solution is to convince the mother. Even if you kill the abortionist, the mother can still get an abortion somewhere else. Anything that you do in that room that doesn't involve convincing the mother not to go through with it, is a delaying tactic.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

We wouldn't want to take Lighthouse away from his very important work explaining to everyone that Einstien was an idiot about the whole "gravity" thing.

So you hold to Einstien's theory of gravity over the quantum theory of gravity?

I love when atheists say "Well gravity is also just a theory" and I say "Yeah, I know -- there is like four of them."

Did Tiller have a self defence argument against any of the babies he killed? No? Did the guy who stopped him have one? Yes.
That's consistency.

I don't think the guy who killed Tiller had a self-defense argument. You can't say ... "Well he was going to kill tomorrow ... assuming he was in good health, but by Tuesday at the latest ... unless it was a 48 hour thing ... but at least by Wednesday. By Wednesday for sure."

Roeder sacraficed himself to save a few thousand

Did he save anyone? Didn't the guy from Kansas City come down and take over Tiller's practice within the week? Perhaps (and I pray you are right).

Right, throw stones down on the pro-life Atheist, he's such a rare thing he's a freak that can't survive so kill him the way Tiller killed people that were different.

I don't believe the others (Granite and Johnny) are pro-life.
Are you?

I think you may be one of the ones I elucidated on earlier that I don't want to take my side.

 

[fool]

As an emotional argument - yes. He deserved death - no doubt about it.

Tiller killed people legally, Roeder defended people legally, it's not their fault that our society is inconsistant. We need to work that out.
Tiller was going to kill on Monday and Roeder killed Tiller on Sunday.
Why are people ***** footing around about this?

Now you just have to defend vengeance by vigilantes and you are home free. Good luck.

Not vengence but defence. You can't bring people back from the dead but you can stop the hand that drives the needle into the heart.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Tiller killed people legally, Roeder defended people legally, it's not their fault that our society is inconsistant.

You mean it "should be legal"? I'm still a little hazy on how what Roeder did was "okay" with you.

Well what about killing a politician that support abortion -- should killing them be legal? Without their support in office, there would be no clinics after all.

Tiller was going to kill on Monday and Roeder killed Tiller on Sunday.

Somewhere buried very close to the surface of that statement is a big, big problem for the self-defense argument.

Not vengence but defence. You can't bring people back from the dead but you can stop the hand that drives the needle into the heart.

If it's not vengeance, then how many he already killed seems moot. Or were you trying to establish a pattern of behavior or something?

 

[Johnny]

You said "kill him as he is walking into an abortion clinic". Then you changed it to walking into your house. Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference?

Are you seriously questioning whether I know the difference? It tends to help the conversation to assume your opponent is at least minimally intelligent. Obviously I know the difference. I changed it to "walking into house" because we are discussing what constitutes imminent danger.

You are arguing that an abortionist (who has intent to kill) is not an imminent threat to fetuses while he is walking into the abortion clinic. I pointed out that the courts consider a burglar an imminent threat the moment he walks into your home. Then you go off on "but but home is different than the clinic". Well obviously, but we're discussing what constitutes imminent danger. And in the case of a burglar imminent danger does not mean the moment he points the gun at you. The imminent danger occurs long before that. The analogy here is that the imminent danger to the fetuses can arguably begin long before the doctor begins the procedure.

You knew this, which is why you were dishonest and changed the scenario from walking into an abortion clinic to walking into your house.

I changed the context to argue that the phrase imminent danger can refer to the moments leading up to the actual event that threatens your life. This is the Socratic method of debate.

Good grief. I gave you the definition of self-defense.
Why are you playing semantics?

You and Lighthouse are the one's doing mental gymnastics with the word imminent. I'm just here to argue that imminent expands beyond the moment he starts the abortion process.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html

. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

...

The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;
...

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to.

Again, we're arguing about when imminent begins. Citing a court case using the word imminent does not help unless it defines where imminent becomes future violence.

If you see someone walk into your neighbor's house with a gun, it's probably safe to assume your neighbor is in imminent danger. Likewise if you see an abortionist walk into his clinic, the same could be argued about the fetuses in the waiting room.

I don't believe the others (Granite and Johnny) are pro-life.

I consider myself pro-life. You probably would not consider me pro-life because I don't find anything wrong with oral contraceptives.

 

[WizardofOz]

It would probably end in a manslaughter verdict since a fetus is not legally a person......yet.

Why is he not legally a person when I can clearly identify him thru DNA as an individual phenotype of the genus Homo and the species Sapian and beyond that we can see that he's my son and my wifes son and my father's grandson and my father in laws grandson and the nephew of a bunch of other people.

I think this is the fundamental question we should be asking.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

And in the case of a burglar imminent danger does not mean the moment he points the gun at you. The imminent danger occurs long before that. The analogy here is that the imminent danger to the fetuses can arguably begin long before the doctor begins the procedure.

And I’ve already exposed why that is a false and terrible analyogy. There is a vast difference in someone coming at you in your private property and comparing that to the clinic (owned by the buglar from your analogy). You don’t have the same rights in public property. You can’t shoot someone because they invaded your personal space or something in a public area.

Comparing the situation to the leniency you are given in your own home is a false analogy.

Again, we're arguing about when imminent begins. Citing a court case using the word imminent does not help unless it defines where imminent becomes future violence.

Ultimately we are actually arguing self-defense and how imminent relates to that. Imminent can mean other things in different relations, but in self defense, you cannot shoot someone going into your neighbor’s house with a gun. That reminds me of a terrible but humorous movie called "Naked Gun" where the protagonist defends shooting a bunch of guys stabbing someone in central park. Whereas they were all thespians doing a Shakespeare in the park rendition of Julius Caesar. So before you shoot the guy going into your neighbor's house with a gun .. make sure he isn't selling it or something.

When an abortionist enters the clinic, he may be doing a consolation first. He might not kill for an hour. Usually not. But it is not certain. Also it needs to be immediate. West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines imminent this way;

Impending; menacingly close at hand; threatening.

Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent.
​

So it would have to be;
1) certain
2) immediate
3) not contingent.

You can't argue that an abortionists walking into the clinic from his car meets any of those three. It is contingent. It is not certain. And it is certainly not immediate. At this point, in any one case you look at, the woman may change her mind. The abortionist may change his mind. Any number of things could stop him short of death.

And to be honest, killing him is just bad problem solving.

I consider myself pro-life. You probably would not consider me pro-life because I don't find anything wrong with oral contraceptives.

I apologize for the misstatement.

 

[Granite]

AJ, you are indulging in even more ridiculous and unnecessary semantics than pro-choicers do, and to the same end: to justify killing someone.

And yes, I'm most certainly pro-life, so the second you stop making silly assumptions, the better off we'll all be. Fair enough?

 

[bybee]

Many thoughtful posts on this thread have shown a variety of viewpoints, most of them sensible, some of them not so sensible. The problem begins when two people decide to have unprotected sex. (I am not discussing rape or incest or even threat of violence and coercion - they are other issues.) I am not even discussing first and second trimesters of pregnancy. I am discussing third trimester pregnancies. In the third trimester we have a living, viable human life. This little life can feel things. It's sensory apparatus is functioning. Did you know it is tuned in to the beating of it's mother's heart? It can hear music? To, IN ANY WAY, deliberately harm this unborn child is a monstrous act of murder. As an operating room nurse of long standing, I can share with you all the joy that the whole team feels when a new little life enters the room! and the devastation when that life is not viable. I can't allow myself to contemplate what is done to abort these baby's. But I can and do support mom's who want to have their babies . bybee

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm well aware of what imminent means. The legal definition of imminent is context dependent but mostly relies on "reasonable expectation of harm". The common definition of "imminent" includes, "about to occur: about to happen, or threatening to happen".

Apparently you don't know what imminent means.

Oh shut up. See above.

So had the act been performed it as Tiller was walking into his abortion clinic, would it then be condonable?

Assuming the clinic had normal hours, and patients had appointments, Tiller would have been scheduled to murder in less than 24-hours. Does that not qualify as imminent threat of death to the fetuses?

Imagine a hostage situation: "This person will die in 24 hours unless X demands are met" -- is lethal force not condonable in this case because the implementation of the lethal plan isn't in progress yet? Is that an imminent threat?

The right thing to do would first be to attempt to talk the women out of the abortion. At that point lethal force is not necessary, and therefore not right.

This means that if you go to the clinic with the intention of killing the "doctor" you are in the wrong.

And in a hostage situation a crime has already taken place. It;s called kidnapping. And kidnapping should be punishable by execution.

 

[fool]

So you hold to Einstien's theory of gravity over the quantum theory of gravity?

I love when atheists say "Well gravity is also just a theory" and I say "Yeah, I know -- there is like four of them."

I was having a really good time in that thread until this Tiller thing went down, some things are more important than others.
Perhaps I'll take a break this weekend to continue expalining physics, but I'm a little backed up right now explaining the birds and the bees to some Atheists and Law to some Christians.

I don't think the guy who killed Tiller had a self-defense argument.

You've made that abundantly clear. I do think he has one.

You can't say ... "Well he was going to kill tomorrow ... assuming he was in good health, but by Tuesday at the latest ... unless it was a 48 hour thing ... but at least by Wednesday. By Wednesday for sure."

That is what I'm saying, but a little better articulated than that.

Did he save anyone? Didn't the guy from Kansas City come down and take over Tiller's practice within the week? Perhaps (and I pray you are right).

Tillers clinic is closed, yes Carhart says he's going to take over the blood trade in Kansas he dosen't know where yet.
Carhart used to come to Tiller's to kill his late terms because it's not legal in Nebraska.
He says his staff in Nebraska aren't trained in the late term procedure.
Carhart can't be in two places at once, and to get the "medical reason" you need another opinion.
If Carhart is the new Tiller then he needs a new Carhart.

I don't believe the others (Granite and Johnny) are pro-life.
Are you?

Everyman is a voice in the dark.

I think you may be one of the ones I elucidated on earlier that I don't want to take my side.

You're defending Tiller's actions, so we're not on the same side.

 

[fool]

You mean it "should be legal"? I'm still a little hazy on how what Roeder did was "okay" with you.

What Roeder did wasen't "okay" it was extrodinary.
He sacraficed himself to save others.
Who else in history has done that?:think:

Well what about killing a politician that support abortion -- should killing them be legal? Without their support in office, there would be no clinics after all.

Carhart's moving to Kansas cause it's not legal in Nebraska.
So that goes to show that some politicians and voters are doing some things right in some states.
Tiller was pivitol at his practice, Roeder had a reasonable expectation that taking out Tiller would result in people not being delivered alive and viable but having their skulls crushed just before they emerged bucause in this magical place in Kansas you can do anything you want to a newborn full term baby as long as his head is still inside.

Somewhere buried very close to the surface of that statement is a big, big problem for the self-defense argument.

If it's so close to the surface you should have dug it up already.

If it's not vengeance, then how many he already killed seems moot. Or were you trying to establish a pattern of behavior or something?

60,000 is a pattern of behavior dude. You want to argue that it's not?

 

[Granite]

How often should we put cold-blooded murder "in perspective"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How often should we put cold-blooded murder "in perspective"?

As often as necessary.

 

[Granite]

As often as necessary.

So you'd say we should put the Holocaust "in perspective," or Rwanda "in perspective," or Cambodia? Should we put abortion "in perspective"? Exactly what kind of "perspective" is needed when dealing with cold-blooded murder?

Or is Tiller's murder different because of who he was?

 

[Rusha]

So you'd say we should put the Holocaust "in perspective," or Rwanda "in perspective," or Cambodia? Should we put abortion "in perspective"? Exactly what kind of "perspective" is needed when dealing with cold-blooded murder?

Or is Tiller's murder different because of who he was?

Legally no ... his murder is not justifiable. Morally ... it's a grey area. What I mean is that YES, we can all agree that murder is always wrong, however, I think it's perfectly understandable that the gut instinct for certain *victims* might range from outrage, to satisfaction, to indifference.

Let me give you an example: IF someone offed Susan Smith in her jail cell, my initial reaction would be satisfaction ... just like my reaction to the murder of her boys was outrage.

Does anyone truly lose a lot of sleep when the monsters of society kick the proverbial bucket and meet their own karma head on?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So you'd say we should put the Holocaust "in perspective," or Rwanda "in perspective," or Cambodia? Should we put abortion "in perspective"? Exactly what kind of "perspective" is needed when dealing with cold-blooded murder?

Or is Tiller's murder different because of who he was?

Shouldn't we attempt to put everything in proper perspective? That's what I try to do. :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Legally no ... his murder is not justifiable. Morally ... it's a grey area. What I mean is that YES, we can all agree that murder is always wrong, however, I think it's perfectly understandable that the gut instinct for certain *victims* might range from outrage, to satisfaction, to indifference.

Let me give you an example: IF someone offed Susan Smith in her jail cell, my initial reaction would be satisfaction ... just like my reaction to the murder of her boys was outrage.

Does anyone truly lose a lot of sleep when the monsters of society kick the proverbial bucket and meet their own karma head on?

I couldn't agree more!

The media is trying to make Tiller out to be some sort of "Women's Rights" hero. I think it's good that we put him in the proper perspective in that he murdered tens of thousands of women.

 

[Granite]

Legally no ... his murder is not justifiable. Morally ... it's a grey area. What I mean is that YES, we can all agree that murder is always wrong, however, I think it's perfectly understandable that the gut instinct for certain *victims* might range from outrage, to satisfaction, to indifference.

Let me give you an example: IF someone offed Susan Smith in her jail cell, my initial reaction would be satisfaction ... just like my reaction to the murder of her boys was outrage.

Does anyone truly lose a lot of sleep when the monsters of society kick the proverbial bucket and meet their own karma head on?

Rusha, my problem is that this kind of equivocation is exactly the kind of thing that leads to this kind of violence. Or maybe put another way: some people have the maturity to recognize the distinction. Most don't.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Rusha, my problem is that this kind of equivocation is exactly the kind of thing that leads to this kind of violence. Or maybe put another way: some people have the maturity to recognize the distinction. Most don't.

:spam: