What's the Latest on the Controversial Killing of Abortion Doctor George Tiller?

[math_04]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tiller1-2009jun01,0,7068875.story

Here we go again. Another massive debate on abortion looming. Another reason why religion can make good people do crazy things.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Since it was more or less a straight murder I guess the guy won't be facing charges of terrorism. That would certainly make for an interesting case.

 

[LewisEE]

This is just disgusting.

 

[rootX]

Another massive debate on abortion looming. Another reason why religion can make good people do crazy things.

I don't agree even though I think people who so strongly adhere to those values (and reluctant to change) should go to some remote place and live in isolation from the world forever in their little (one race, one religion) small world. They seriously make me sick :(.

 

[Moonbear]

Another case of someone so screwed up that saving a fetus is more important than preserving the life of an adult. I don't know if this one was religiously motivated, or some other nuttiness, but I can't wait to hear the rationalizations of why murdering someone in a church is okay, but abortion isn't.

 

[LewisEE]

Randall Terry's response:

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.


Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

 

[math_04]

It amazes me how they can justify the killing of George Tiller, a family man and in a church too. This kind of radical, mindless religious behaviour should be met with a firm hand. It is one thing to protest, to debate and a completely different thing to kill another person based on his beliefs. I guess Randall Terry just proved my point that was mentioned in my first post about religion.

 

[rootX]

Randall Terry's response:

is this taken out of context?

Regardless of what one thinks, no one going to admit publicly that the doctor's murder is justified religiously :rofl:

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This kind of radical, mindless religious behaviour should be met with a firm hand.

It is not religious behavior. And actions such as killing people generally are met with a firm hand.

the murderer should be killed. he's obviously unstable and religously motivated

Perhaps unstable people motivated by immorality should be killed too? You know like people who kill babies? That's sarcasm by the way.

 

[rootX]

the murderer should be killed.

Yes, he should be killed...

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/J/0/3/WitchHang1678-e.jpg

... ... .. like these witches.

 

[kittenwood]

Yes, he should be killed...

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/J/0/3/WitchHang1678-e.jpg

... ... .. like these witches.

no he should be killed like this guy

 

[math_04]

Of course it is religious behaviour. The murder took place because some person was offended on religious grounds. When I say firm hand, I mean there should be universal condemnation across all lines, whether secular or religious. What next, firebombing a teacher's house because he or she teaches evolution or the lynching of a homosexual?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of course it is religious behaviour. The murder took place because some person was offended on religious grounds.

That does not make it "religious behavior". Similarly if a democrat is offended by a republican over politics and shoots him that does not make it "political behavior".

 

[Pengwuino]

Of course it is religious behaviour. The murder took place because some person was offended on religious grounds. When I say firm hand, I mean there should be universal condemnation across all lines, whether secular or religious. What next, firebombing a teacher's house because he or she teaches evolution or the lynching of a homosexual?

That's like saying firebombing a car dealership or booby trapping trees for loggers and such behavior is "environmentalism behavior". What about some nut who kills a racist white person, is that "civil rights behavior"? Every belief has its nuts, it doesn't mean the belief and people who believe in it are like the nutbag or that said belief condones the nuts.

 

[math_04]

I never said that all religious people are bad. What I have said is that the attack was motivated on religious grounds; the fact that abortion is contrary to 'moral principles' of religion. The doctor was killed because he has done hundreds of abortions not because of the colour of his skin. I think you are reading too much into my first statement. Where do u think Al Qaeda, the Inquisition, Crusades got their excuse from? Pick whatever verse you want which suits your need. Again, most religious people tend to ignore those parts but there are some who don't. I am just commenting on those who don't; those who get so angry at the perceived lack of people upholding a certain religious belief that they lash out.

 

[Pengwuino]

I never said that all religious people are bad. What I have said is that the attack was motivated on religious grounds; the fact that abortion is contrary to 'moral principles' of religion. The doctor was killed because he has done hundreds of abortions not because of the colour of his skin. I think you are reading too much into my first statement. Where do u think Al Qaeda, the Inquisition, Crusades got their excuse from? Pick whatever verse you want which suits your need. Again, most religious people tend to ignore those parts but there are some who don't. I am just commenting on those who don't; those who get so angry at the perceived lack of people upholding a certain religious belief that they lash out.

No, we didn't say that you said all religious people were bad. You didn't even say it was motivated on religious grounds. You said it was "religious behavior", that is behavior congruent to religious people, which it is NOT.

 

[math_04]

ok, I guess should have phrased the sentence better.

 

[russ_watters]

Another case of someone so screwed up that saving a fetus is more important than preserving the life of an adult.

That's too easy of a dismissal. I'm pro choice and don't advocate murder, but the logic of those who are anti-abortion - extremist or not - is pretty straightforward and difficult to argue with:

If abortion is murder, then those who do it need to be stopped. Since the government isn't stopping them...[what comes next depends on how extreme the position is].

This is why despite the US being largely pro choice, the pro-life side is winning. The moral nature of the issue demands that those who are pro-life aggressively pursue their adjenda.

 

[penguin glue]

You said it was "religious behavior", that is behavior congruent to religious people, which it is NOT.

But would you agree that this definition is not universal?

math_04 gave a different definition:

Of course it is religious behaviour. The murder took place because some person was offended on religious grounds.

The second sentence defines "religious behavior" as religiously motivated behavior and not behavior congruent to religious people. I don't think there's any ambiguity here.

 

[cristo]

Locked pending moderation.