Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Doctor Killing?
ConservativeAmerican.org ^ | 5/31/9 | Peter Andrew

Posted on 05/31/2009 11:33:23 AM PDT by Peter Andrew Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: Brilliant

How’s that???

What’s the difference between (purely rhetorical here) someone killing a guy who sucks childrens brains out of their heads daily and someone who kills a guy who’s in the process of murdering a family or a group of people at a gathering?

If it was unchristian to stop the guy, how is any more christian to kill a guy invading your house, or a neighbors?

While I wouldn’t hop-to going out and killing a guy in church I sure would think long and hard about proffering a guilty verdict in the perpetrators trial (and motive would play a huge roll in it)...


21 posted on 05/31/2009 12:34:21 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
Exactly. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don't.

Tell me wagglebee, if you were chosen for the jury on the Tiller Murder case, would you convict him?

I know I would vote "Not Guilty".

Ultimately the final arbiter of right and wrong and of guilt or innocence lies with the people and their ability to vote their consciences while sitting on a jury.

Yes this guy broke the law and should be called to account. But those who ultimately sit in judgment of him are bound only by their consciences. I would hope he receives swift justice.

He should be promptly arrested, given a fair trial by a jury of his peers and ultimately acquitted.

22 posted on 05/31/2009 12:40:40 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; P-Marlowe; enat; blue-duncan
I do not want to give the impression, however, that this abortion doctor was a more moral person than his own murderer. He is no hero.

What happened today is not all that different from when one murderous, gang-banger thug kills another murderous, gang-banger thug.

23 posted on 05/31/2009 12:41:03 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mrmeangenes
I don't give a damn what you do. But I do have a suggestion...

Finish your macaroni art before you spill your Elmer's glue...again.

24 posted on 05/31/2009 12:42:53 PM PDT by South40 (Obamaphobia = Fear of Black Socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; P-Marlowe; enat; blue-duncan
What happened today is not all that different from when one murderous, gang-banger thug kills another murderous, gang-banger thug.

Actually I consider it more along the lines of when a distraught mother murders a child molester after he is granted probation at the end of the trial.

25 posted on 05/31/2009 12:43:55 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
Tell me wagglebee, if you were chosen for the jury on the Tiller Murder case, would you convict him?

I wouldn't be chosen, because I could not truthfully claim to be impartial.

But those who ultimately sit in judgment of him are bound only by their consciences.

You need to really think about what you are saying here, because believing that juries should be bound by their consciences (which will invariably include feelings and emotions), rather than the rule of law, establishes a more dangerous precedent than you can possibly imagine. The result would be nothing more than anarchy.

26 posted on 05/31/2009 12:47:00 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; enat; blue-duncan
Actually I consider it more along the lines of when a distraught mother murders a child molester after he is granted probation at the end of the trial.

IF it turns out that the killer was a relative of one of Tiller's victims I would agree with you.

27 posted on 05/31/2009 12:48:34 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; enat; blue-duncan
IF it turns out that the killer was a relative of one of Tiller's victims I would agree with you.

I suspect that everyone in Kansas is a relative of at least one of his victims.

28 posted on 05/31/2009 12:51:48 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses
I know I would vote "Not Guilty".

I would too!

I looked at my Bible and in Exodus chapter 21 vs 12-27 there are a lot of things that call for a death penalty. Among them is causing the unborn to die, see vs 22-23.

29 posted on 05/31/2009 12:53:31 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
You need to really think about what you are saying here, because believing that juries should be bound by their consciences (which will invariably include feelings and emotions), rather than the rule of law, establishes a more dangerous precedent than you can possibly imagine.

That, my FRiend is the law. Juries are the ultimate arbiters of the law. If a law is unjust, a jury is obliged to acquit. The courts try to pretend that the jury does not have the power to nullify a law, but they do. It is inherent in the system and is the final check and balance in our system against tyranny.

The result would be nothing more than anarchy.

Wrong. Ultimately the result is justice.

30 posted on 05/31/2009 12:56:31 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

+++++I looked at my Bible and in Exodus chapter 21 vs 12-27 there are a lot of things that call for a death penalty. Among them is causing the unborn to die, see vs 22-23.+++++

lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you.

Deut 19:10 (ESV)

Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.

Deut 19:13 (ESV)

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Prov 6:16-19 (ESV)


31 posted on 05/31/2009 1:07:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
If a law is unjust, a jury is obliged to acquit. The courts try to pretend that the jury does not have the power to nullify a law, but they do.

And when it works out the other way, what then?

What do you say when a truly innocent man is found guilty because society hates him and the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?

What do you say when the government decides to put the "evil rich" on trial just because they are rich and they are imprisoned because the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?

32 posted on 05/31/2009 1:12:24 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee

This is a tad more complex, the dead Mr. Tiller has a business where daily babies are killed. The law sanctions this without ever a vote of the people, it protects the killer of babies under the color of law. There is, in my mind, no question that babies will live because of the acts of today that otherwise would have been killed by Tiller.


33 posted on 05/31/2009 1:18:05 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
when it works out the other way, what then?

Oh, well. It happens so infrequently that it is not really noticed. The OJ jury decided to free OJ, not because he wasn't guilty, but because they were upset at what they perceived were injustices against people of color. Ultimately OJ got his.

I do recall a woman who shot some child molester in the courtroom in front of 100 witnesses and cameras and IIRC she was either acquitted or convicted of involuntary manslaughter and released for time served. In that case the jury did its duty.

What do you say when a truly innocent man is found guilty because society hates him and the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?

There is nothing stopping them from doing that now, except their own consciences. Most likely in a case like that the judge can overrule the jury and order an acquittal from the bench. Judges, do not, however, have the power to change a jury verdict of "not guilty" to guilty.

Honestly wagglebee, would you vote to convict this guy if you had it in your power to acquit him?

Be honest.

34 posted on 05/31/2009 1:20:19 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee

I would convict him because the doctor was at church and not at the clinic.

It’s an important fact.


35 posted on 05/31/2009 1:25:43 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee; wmfights
I would convict him because the doctor was at church and not at the clinic.

What is the difference between a Clinic that Murders children and a Church that supports it?

And if we are going to insist, as we have for decades, that Abortion is MURDER, then we are as morally guilty of the killing of Tiller as the guy who pulled the trigger. By calling Abortion "Murder" we equate those who perform the act with being cold blooded killers and we encourage people who act in defense of the unborn to commit acts such as this.

So if we are going to cry crocodile tears over the killing of this serial murderer, then we ought not to be crying crocodile outrage at the guy who took us seriously enough to kill him.

Are we serious when we call Abortion "murder" or are we just bloviating?

I'm beginning to think the latter.

36 posted on 05/31/2009 1:37:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

No, it is murder, and we are not bloviating.

Are we bloviating when we say “God will repay.”? It hasn’t happened yet. We’re still waiting.

Or do we believe it?

As in another post I just sent, if we can justify killing the murderer, then we can justify killing all his accomplices, too.

Judges, legislators, and individual, democrat voters.

If one, then all.


37 posted on 05/31/2009 1:46:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; narses; wmfights
There is nothing stopping them from doing that now, except their own consciences. Most likely in a case like that the judge can overrule the jury and order an acquittal from the bench. Judges, do not, however, have the power to change a jury verdict of "not guilty" to guilty.

However, this has been commonplace in EVERY totalitarian regime in history. The fact that it hasn't happened here yet doesn't mean that Zero isn't thinking about it.

38 posted on 05/31/2009 1:50:37 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee; wmfights; narses
As in another post I just sent, if we can justify killing the murderer, then we can justify killing all his accomplices, too.

Maybe we really don't consider Abortion to be murder.

Maybe we're just kidding ourselves and blustering.

If, in fact, we all truly believed that every abortion is murder, then we should all be rejoicing that George Tiller is dead.

He will not be committing any more murders. That should be cause for celebration. But I don't see that kind of reaction. Hence, I can only conclude that deep down we really don't believe it is murder. It's bad, but it isn't in the same ballpark as murder.

39 posted on 05/31/2009 1:59:17 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
However, this has been commonplace in EVERY totalitarian regime in history.

A trial by a jury of your peers (as guaranteed by our constitution) has certainly NEVER been commonplace in any totalitarian regime.

The whole idea of a guarantee of a trial by a jury "of your peers" is so that the jury of your peers can, if appropriate, nullify unjust laws or acquit you of a crime where your justification outweighs the harm to society.

We must remember that our constitution was written by a bunch of guys who had a healthy distrust of government and who had at one time nearly all committed crimes for which they could have been executed.

40 posted on 05/31/2009 2:07:55 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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