Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I don't think I was clear, so let me put it this way: Roeder wasn't saving his child or even his unborn child. Tiller was in a church with family, friends, and fellow parishioners.
|
Maybe I wasn't clear. Self-defense of someone else's unborn child can still be defined as self-defense. It doesn't need to be "your own", as self-defense laws do not just apply to yourself or the things you own, but can be and often are applied to the defense of others as well.
Quote:
|
You think Roeder was acting rationally?
|
I never said he was. I said that if his intent was to stop all abortions everywhere, he wouldn't of focused on a
specific abortion provider, which you've more or less ignoring.
Quote:
Roeder's been quite clear in his intent.
Read that carefully. "all the unborn children", "no more slicing and dicing of the unborn child in the mother's womb and no more needles of poison into the baby's heart to stop the heart from beating, and no more partial-birth abortions." His assassination wasn't because of one clinic, it was because of all abortions, especially "partial-birth" (which isn't an accurate term for the procedure). I don't know why you're missing this. I can find more articles outlining, in his own words, his intent.
|
Now, Will. I know you're smarter than this.
1.) Your stretching "all the unborn children" to mean "all the unborn children everywhere" instead of "all the unborn children which would have been killed by Dr. Tiller". Unless, you're operating under the assumption that Tiller performed every abortion in the U.S.-- All 1.2M'ish+ of them-- Then your assertion is illogical.
2.) Remember what I said about Tiller being "singled out" because of a few of his practices which were considered egregious? No? Well, to refresh your memory, this is exactly what I wrote on earlier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Me
People seem to be under the impression that Tiller was "singled out" solely because he was an abortion doctor, which is more or less incorrect. He was "singled out" because a number of his practices were* (Fixed grammatical error) considered egregious. It has nothing to do with getting rid of a "legally protected right" as much as it has to do with getting rid of someone considered to be "stretching" that "legally protected right" to fit his own views.
|
So, explain to me again what part of that you disagree with or which part of the link you provided (Which I read before and is where I got the whole "defense of the unborn line" from) goes against what I wrote above.
3.) I never said Tiller's murder was because of one clinic. Nowhere. I don't believe you're reading what I'm writing out.
Quote:
|
You'll have to carry on this argument with Roeder because he seems to disagree with you.
|
Once again, Will, I must ask you what part of what you quoted goes against anything I've typed here. I'm obviously dumb, so you're going to have to show/explain it to me.
---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I'm going to assume that you meant "but the intent/expected" instead of what you actually wrote. Since I don't think you're that stupid.
|
Yeah. Grammatical error on my part.
Quote:
|
And it's the same damn thing. The act is designed to force the conclusion. And it has nothing to do with frequency, which, after all, was the point of the statement in the first place. By the logic you're using, if a terrorist kills folks in a novel way, it's not terrorism. So, yeah, that's a strawman and pretty much nonsensical. This was a political act designed to halt abortions. We both agree on that. The way that act was conduct makes it terrorism. You sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "it's not terrorism!" at the top of your lungs doesn't make change anything.
|
No. That's not what I'm saying
AT ALL. How is it that you continue to assert what I'm typing out is a strawman while continuously making one yourself? I don't get it.
But, anyway, terrorism is an act of violence. An act of violence is not necessarily terrorism. If it is, there's a hell of a lot of terrorists running around. Targeting a specific clinic or abortion provider is an act of violence. Targeting a specific clinic or abortion provider in order to influence abortion laws or policy could, and would be, considered "terrorism". Terrorism is the means by which one brings out some sort of policy or political change. The intent behind Roeder's attacks was not to bring about a policy change, but to kill the one carrying out the abortions (Tiller). The distinction is pretty clear. It was an act of violence; not an act of terrorism.
I get so tired of people always throwing around the "T" word. It almost reminds me of that one Robot Chicken skit.