was he a good, moral guy, no. Did he deserve to die, no
Just posing the question. He wan't just any abortionist, but one of only three "doctors" in the USA who would euthanise babies at up to 9 months in the womb. He may be resonsible for as many as 60,000 cases of infanticide, yet the MSM makes him out to be a holy martyr.
There's no question that his killer was a bad guy who took the law into his own hands and committed premeditated murder. But was Tiller himself really the sacred cow and martyr that the MSM makes him out to be, or was he a murderer as well? I vote the latter.
check out www .dr-tiller. com
"Tiller offers funeral services for babies he has killed. Tiller encourages the mother to hold the aborted baby and have their picture taken together. He calls this an "identification and separation encounter" and claims this will help the mother in the "process of healing.""
was he a good, moral guy, no. Did he deserve to die, no
Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
adam @ ControlledLabs.com
CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
I agree with death sentences for convicted murderers.
If you're anti-abortion then, yes
If you're not anti-abortion then, no.
You don't have to be anti-abortion to be anti-murder, and "abortions" performed at a point at which the child could be delivered instead are murders to me.
Do I have any problems with first and even part of 2nd trimester abortions? no, as at that point the fetus is a parasite, no brain function worth noting, unable to breathe, etc.
No you dont but typically those who are anti abortion believe life starts very early. much earlier than you or I may think it does.
yeah, but 3rd trimester is wrong without the mothers life being in significant risk, and even then i dunno. "We" carried a baby that we knew would be a miscarriage until the miscarriage just to not have the abortion, even though that is riskier than the abortion itself. Granted in this case, miscarriage was at 19 weeks, and no significant risk to her in doing it this way.
I'm not sure how the doctor could have lived with himself honestly, although murdering him was no better or worse than what he did.
I am posing the question. As for my own opinion. Am I sorry the man is dead? Absoluely not. Do I believe he was a murderer and at least as bad as the guy who gunned him down? Absolutely.
Once the baby is past the point of viability in the womb, the pregnancy can be terminated without murdering the baby. Killing a baby at 6-8 months in the womb because it has downs and the mother/parents don't want the responsibility of caring for a special needs child is not "abortion". It is murder.
The website is obviously anti-Tiller. But, the info in there does not libel him. It is just an account of what the man did for a living. IOW, it is what it is. I'm sorry if you don't like what you see.
I don't empathise with the guy who killed him, but I will say that the world is better off without him. The guy was a sociopath and nothing more than a hitman.
Did he deserve to die? Yes, we all do.
I'm sorry...pardon me if i'm jumping the gun but i wasn't aware anyone on this planet was qualified to pass judgment on anyone else, nevertheless to say who "deserves to die" or not.
I'd like to stand corrected. I mean really. I would.
Do I consider him and those like him that perform LTA's a POS and worthless pondscum - yes. Did anyone have the right to execute him - no.
Will someone likely live a full life now that he is gone, actually, several someones yet to be born......probably.
This is a loaded question. He did not deserve to die.
Did he break the law in his state? Outside of ones pro choice or pro life moral stance, did he break the law?
If he did, then justice should be served, not a vigilante death sentence.
Personally, I think ALL men should just STFU........I mean really. Last time i checked, we cant get pregnant.
I am a pro choice candidate, btw. I have real authority issues when it comes to ones own body.
We're talking specifically about children who could have been delivered live and not needed life support machinery or IV feeding, etc who instead were killed. This isn't a case of like with religious anti-abortionism arguing that it is a person the second the sperm and egg meet as these are babies that were deliverable the day they were killed. It isn't a question of the mother having control of her body, its a question as to whether she has the right to choose the surgical procedure that kills the infant over the one that delivers it.... Be all that said, for many of them its probably better that the abortion happens as the mother has to be a total useless heartless douchebag to do that anyhow.
Are all of our laws right? If they were, we wouldnt have laws that change year to year.
i mean, no one on here can really believe they're qualified to point fingers at anyone, right? we're all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts and no one is capable of pointing fingers w/o having three pointed back at them. just sayin
cheers to killing people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong. gotta love the cognitive dissonance
let the discussion go on!
We don't kill people to show killing is wrong. We kill people to punish them for murder. It's about justice, restitution, some deterrence (albeit debatable) and fairness.
If you take someones life unjustly (murder), how is it fair that you get to continue living yours after you took away that of someone else.
Away from the death penalty now. Is it acceptable to kill to save yourself or others? If a madman breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I feel my family is threatened or some thugs jump out of a dark alley armed and threatening me and my family; is it acceptable for me to use deadly force? Would that be murder? What if the imminent harm wasn't to my family but I am witnessing the atrocity? May I then act with deadly force to protect an innocent?
Now what if there is an ongoing atrocity that the law was insufficient to protect people from ie. it was not "illegal" by the powers that be? Perhaps it is a concentration camp and the "powers that be" are doing nothing to stop the innocents from being herded into the showers and in fact participating in the process (government funded abortion lets say).
Do my personal morals which tell me this is wrong get trumped by the state or should I act on my conscience and attempt to save further innocents from harm?
How is a baby who is viable outside the whom any different? Because it is inside another innocent who is "suddenly" at risk? What of my children who are already living outside of my wife's body? They put her health, well being and "lifestyle" at risk everyday. She no longer has the same freedoms over her own body as she had before children. We are now legally responsible for their well being and supervision and can not just come and go and do as and when we please. We have added stress to our lives which we all know is unhealthy and add'l burdens financially, logistically and emotionally.
Would it be ok with you if I punctured one of their little skulls & sucked their brains out to make things a little easier and less risky? I can choose one of our younger ones if that will make you feel ok with it. Or perhaps my eleven your old girl, she is a real handful. Life would sure be easier and less of a health risk with her gone. Or maybe one of my fourteen year olds? Boy or girl, you pick.
Lastly, where do we get our rights? From the state? I was under the impression that the state was their to PROTECT our unalienable rights. You know, the ones this great nation was founded upon. Endowed by a creator; the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. As soon as the state is no longer functioning within that capacity, what obligation do I have to continue to mindlessly follow under it's reign of tyranny?
This subject is deep and complex (speaking of OP) and it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at THE correct answer. We are either dealing in absolute finite truths or of infinite feelings and opinions; inevitably a smidgen of both. Who is right, who is wrong and who am I to say? Who really does, if anyone, have the rights of life and death? Do we live within a universe created and dictated by a set group of universal moral and physical laws or one of unguided randomness where we are on our own to decide what we feel is right or wrong and it doesn't really matter anyway because this life is all we have and after it is gone there will be no accounting of our actions so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?
Here's a question that should make it real simple. Is a baby that is past the age of viability, yet still in the womb, entitled to any of the basic human rights that the rest of us are under the law?
That's a question that no one seems to want to touch. The lib media only wants to talk about the right to choose, as if that is all that matters. But they won't touch the underlying question of human rights for an unborn child that is capable of living outside the womb, even if the pregnancy were to be terminated.