Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
No “necessity defense” for Roeder
Scott Roeder, the confessed killer of abortionist Dr. George Tiller, will not be able to use the “necessity defense” in his trial for the murder, of which he has pleaded “not guilty.” The AP reports:
A judge ruled Tuesday that Kansas law doesn’t allow a so-called “necessity defense” in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers.
The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and says it was necessary to save unborn children.
…Roeder, who has pleaded not guilty, confessed to the shooting on Nov. 9, telling The Associated Press he had no regrets about killing Tiller and suggesting the necessity defense should be the only contested issue at his trial. He declined to say when asked if he would kill another abortion provider if he were acquitted.
back to top115 Comments to “No “necessity defense” for Roeder”
What?! You mean the “I had to become a murdering vigilante to prevent something that IS NOT a crime”-Defense is not admissible in US courts? What is this country coming to when reason and common sense is allowed to trump violent, misogynistic ideology?
Report comment to moderator
I guess things have changed since Lincoln and John Brown.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK: Perhaps you should set up a fund to fund abortion clinics in memory of “killer” Tiller. That would make you another great hero in the eyes of the “Legal” baby killing bunch, no?
Nevertheless: Mr. Roeder had no right to take Tiller’s life.
Report comment to moderator
let it be said right away, that no true Christian in any way shape or form agrees with what he did. He set us back to ground zero with his self righteous act of killing.( in side Gods House no less) Kook whacko theology in action.
Report comment to moderator
Roeder should be held accountable for his actions. He should not have killed the doctor.
That being said, I am very thankful that Dr. Tiller is no longer doing late term abortions.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace, I don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
If you are drawing analogies between Scott Roeder and John Brown, are you also suggesting that we run all the anti-choice people out of Kansas and hang Roeder to death in the town square? Cause that is what happened to John Brown.
Roger, many such funds already exist and they are run by better fundraisers than me.
Jiller, so that’s what you’d say to Scott Roeder? Thank you? Yeah, that’s gross!
Report comment to moderator
I wish the immoral Tiller could have been stopped with legal means. In a decent society, he could have been. But I absolutely do not think anyone had a right to kill Tiller outright either. I believe in the rule of law and I regret that our laws protects such gross immorality as was Tiller’s.
So if Roeder is found guilty, then he should be punished. But I wonder why the state or the judge can determine what defense can be uses? Are there any lawyer types here who can explain this one. Why can’t a man give the defense of his choosing and then face a decision? What gives the state the right to determine what kind of defense he gives? Let him give the defense he wants and live or die with it. The alleged “necessity” defense would not work with me because we cannot be the law unto ourselves and still live by the rule of law.
Will judges and/or the state also be able to tell the Gitmo combatants and also KSM (the mastermind of 9/11) what kind of defense they can or cannot make?
Serious questions. I like to learn.
___________
Report comment to moderator
This is why it is so grossly immoral of the Democrats to oppose the efforts of decent law-abiding pro-lifers who are trying to stop this horrific slaughter of innocent human babies with legal non-violent means. At the very least, the American people of each state should be free to craft their own laws on this topic. Roe V Wade is rotten law. It is immoral as well as unconstitutional.
Report comment to moderator
I am always glad when anyone is no longer doing late-term abortions, but I am sure that Jiller agrees with me that the best efforts and desires of pro-lifers is to seek that those doing such horrific deeds will repent on their own and decide to stop. Second to that would be for a just and equitable law to pass that would stop a violent immoral man like Tiller. What Roeder allegedly did is unacceptable for reason I stated above.
Thus, pro-life free-speech and persuaion efforts should be respected by all and so should our efforts to participate in the American legal and legislative process non-violently to seek laws that would stop a violent man like Tiller.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK- If I were to talk with Roeder myself I would tell him what he did was wrong. I would tell him he should pay with his life because what he did was illegal and immoral.
I would not say thankyou at all.
Unclear about the gross comment.
SOrry if I didnt make myself clear
Report comment to moderator
How can someone confess to a crime and plead “Not Guilty”? Even if killing Hitler were deemed a “necessity” it would still have been a crime unless it was an act of war.
Report comment to moderator
jiller 12.22.09 AT 5:30 PM
MYNOCK- If I were to talk with Roeder myself I would tell him what he did was wrong. I would tell him he should pay with his life because what he did was illegal and immoral.
I would not say thankyou at all.
Unclear about the gross comment.
SOrry if I didnt make myself clear
–
I would ask him to repent of his sin
Report comment to moderator
While the media focuses on this criminal, whom no one supports, Obama secretly released 12 more terrorists to go back to their countries to fight again. Notice how everything this administration does is in secret, in the dead of night?
The link describes the leftist position that everyone in Guantanamo was illegally imprisoned and deserves to go back to their families. Sadly the loved ones whom they killed will never go back to their families.
Report comment to moderator
#7, America stopped being a ‘decent society’ when it decided to protect and enable serial child killers. At that point, the law was turned on its head and became an instrument of force, not justice.
Report comment to moderator
#13
I’m a little confused — I read the article but it never gave the time of release yet you state that it occurred in the dead of night. Furthermore, you state it was secret yet it was fairly easily to find out how many, where and how they were released. Not a very secret process.
Finally you state “the loved ones they killed”. However, nothing was ever proven nor was a trial ever held and yet you are certain of their guilt. Moreover, they were brought to Gitmo because it was believed they acted as money men for al-Queda, not murder.
Gitmo is/was a sham and the quiet release of prisoners started already in the Bush administration.
Report comment to moderator
I’m gathering that Xion is one of those people who casts every story involving people he considers his enemies in the worst light he can think of, regardless of how little relationship it has to reality.
In addition to HRW’s points in #15, the article does not take “the leftist position that everyone in Guantanamo was illegally imprisoned and deserves to go back to their families.” It is not about everyone in Guantanamo, it is about two people.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #7 – you asked why the judge should be able to decide what legal defenses he can use.
Criminal homicide is an unlawful killing of a human being that is not otherwise justified. (A lawful killing would be something like abortion, execution by the state, or a killing in battle.) The “otherwise justified” could come into play in several situations, involving legal defenses, sometimes called affirmative defenses. For example, the defense of duress [technically not a justification, but an excuse - but that's a distinction I don't want to get bogged down with right now], which would be where someone holds a gun to your head and credibly threatens to kill you unless you kill the third person. Some states recognize duress for first-degree murder, others don’t. Another justification would be self-defense, or defense of others. So … to get to your question, the judge is a “gatekeeper” where he or she will not allow the jury to be confused by irrelevant/confusing evidence, or inapplicable legal theories. Normally, the judge waits to see what evidence comes out at trial before deciding if there is any evidence to support an affirmative defense, and hence, deciding whether to instruct the jury about that defense. Here, however, it was a legal question that did not depend on trial evidence. So the judge decided pre-trial that the defendant could not interpose that affirmative defense. If that doesn’t answer your question, let me know.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #11 – you asked how someone can confess to a crime and still plead not guilty. Several scenarios. They might claim that the confession was illegally obtained, and ask the court to suppress it. They might claim that in spite of their confession, they were really not guilty (i.e., they lied when they confessed, or they were coerced into confessing). They might confess that they “did it” but plead not guilty in anticipation of raising an affirmative defense (see #17 above). Remember that a not-guilty plea means the defendant is not necessarily saying he is innocent, but is only holding the state’s feet to the fire, i.e., making them prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is other evidence that weighs in favor of innocence, the defendant might figure there’s a chance the jury will find reasonable doubt in spite of the confession. That said, a confession is normally a very damaging piece of evidence the state can bring out at trial, one of the most damaging, and is very hard to overcome. If it is not suppressed on grounds of coercion or some other Fourth Amendment violation (having to do with unreasonable searches & siezures), the defendant might still argue to the jury that he falsely confessed (maybe say he was drunk, or that he wanted to do a friend a favor but has now had second thoughts, etc.), particularly if he has a believable alibi or can show that the physical evidence in the case points to someone else as the guilty party.
Report comment to moderator
In a personal discussion, what would you think of the following commentary?
“I’m kinda sorry I put rat poison in your tea, now that I see how pale you are. But remember when you used mayo that you thought might be bad to make the potato salad for the church picnic? All those kids in the hospital. Tsk. Feel better soon!”
“Remember when your identity got hacked and someone ran up $28,000 worth of debt in your name? That was ME! I know you’ve been stealing from Garth’s Mercantile for years, even though he’s your cousin and really needed the money he worked hard for. I stopped after $28,000 because I figured it represented the 28 pieces of silver that Judas got. Ain’t I like Jesus? My Sally thanks you for the orthodontia and the chance to learn Christian values at Bob Jones U – have a nice afternoon!
And now:
“I’m so sorry I killed you. But you authorized a war that killed thousands.”
“I’m so sorry I killed you. But you can’t do any more abortions.”
Get the point, people: pro-life is pro-ALL-life. ANd “Oh it was wrong, but at least the victim will stop HIS wrong now too, so it’s all okay…. is horrendous thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Buzzy. So if I boil that down, then what we have is someone who confesses to the crime and doesn’t deny it and there’s plenty of evidence to that fact, but if his lawyers do their job right then he may very well be acquitted.
I doubt that will be the outcome, but we’ve had stranger cases in America. The strangest of all is coming up soon in NYC when the American justice will become the laughing stock of the world.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – then what we have is someone who confesses to the crime and doesn’t deny it and there’s plenty of evidence to that fact, but if his lawyers do their job right then he may very well be acquitted.
Well, that’s a possibility. Another one I was getting at is that they previously confessed to the crime, but now they do deny it because they say the confession was knowingly false or not voluntary. Or they confess they did the actions, but deny it was a crime because of such-and-such an affirmative defense (e.g., they confess they pulled the trigger to kill the intruder, but deny it was criminal homicide based on a claim of self-defense).
Report comment to moderator
#21 Buzzy I think in this case, the second option applies. He admits he did the crime, but denies it was a crime. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a crime.
The problem with our justice system is that it is not really about justice. It is about winning. Prosecutors and lawyers spar. A winner is declared. Sometimes truth is found and justice is done.
In this case, the truth is clear, the verdict is clear. But anything that enters our justice system is a toss up. There is no way to predict the outcome. I understand the system, but it is certainly imperfect and frequently disappointing.
Curiously though, for the first time ever, Eric Holder has declared that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will never walk free regardless of the verdict. So if our imperfect justice system was messy before, it is about to launch into the chaotic.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
This issue isn’t so complicated that it needs a bunch of illustrations to explain it. That a person is no longer killing innocent people is a good thing. That said person is so incapacitated because he was murdered is a bad thing. Both statements *can* be true at the same time. And nobody has said “it’s all okay.” Haven’t you noticed various folks condemning Roeder; some even calling for his execution?
Report comment to moderator
And yo, what’s up with the 28 pieces of silver, I thought it was 30. That was just too wierd for me!
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: They might claim that in spite of their confession, they were really not guilty (i.e., they lied when they confessed, or they were coerced into confessing).
People scoff at this possibility, but I can attest it’s very possible. I once tried to get a top secret security clearance in order to take a government job. Part of the process was a polygraph. (This is not required for all security clearances, but it is for some.)
The FBI agent conducting the test thought I was lying on a couple of questions about drug use. I wasn’t lying, but I was feeling considerable stress under his grilling. He kept asking one accusatory question after another, all assuming that I was being untruthful.
Since it was just a job-related test and not a criminal investigation, he gave up after about 10 or 15 minutes. But I can easily see how after an hour or two of that, a lot of people would “confess” to just about anything just to make it stop.
By the way, I didn’t get the clearance, or the job.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – very interesting. Judging solely by your description above, it sounds like the agent may have been doing his job by seeing if you’d “break,” but when you didn’t he was more confident of your truthfulness. I’m sorry about your not getting the clearance, though. My wife once had to get one, and so I know it’s a rigorous process that one’s job depends on.
In my line of work I review, among other things, confessions and defense and prosecutorial arguments about them. I agree with you that it’s possible to be pressured into a confession if the police apply harsh enough tactics, which is why the law allows for suppression in the event the judge determines the confession was not voluntary. If there’s an audio or video tape, that is helpful because then you can see non-verbal clues that aren’t present in a cold transcript.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 7,
I disagree with you, but a well posed argument.
Thanks for your post.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 8,
no actually as constructued Roe v Wade is consitutitonal by definition: as our constitutiuon is constructed, the Supreme Court interprets what the intent of the constitution is.
Report comment to moderator
The necessity defense is not what you’re thinking. Let’s say a woman is held captive by a whackadoodle rapist/sadist and she kills him as a way of getting free from him. It was “necessary” to kill the guy to gain her freedom and stop him from raping or torturing her. You could use the necessity defense in that situation. It’s different from self-defense because he isn’t trying to kill her.
Aside from insanity, and I think this guy has expressed that he understood what he was doing and knows the difference between right and wrong, I can’t think of a defense for this defendant in this case, or perhaps I don’t want to. The best thing his lawyer can do is come up with a troubled past that might mitigate what he’s done.
This is what we should be worrying about: “Curiously though, for the first time ever, Eric Holder has declared that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will never walk free regardless of the verdict.” that’s truly scary.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer #29 – respectfully, I believe that would be self-defense, even if she wasn’t being threatened with death. I think the necessity defense is more like: A guy sees a kid drowning in a swimming pool, and has to trespass across private property to save the kid’s life. If he’s prosecuted for criminal trespass, he can claim the trespass was necessary to prevent a greater harm, i.e., the kid drowning. Here, although I haven’t seen the exact argument, I imagine the defendant was trying to say killing Tiller was necessary to save late-term unborn babies from death. It won’t fly because the law does not protect the lives of such unborn babies, and additionally, Tiller was not in the process of performing a late-term abortion when he was killed.
On a completely separate note, I find this sentence from the AP interesting: The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder. Notice they don’t say it was a blow to the defendant who faces jail time or execution, but only to his lawyers. Strange point of view, no?
Report comment to moderator
Musing #28 – you’re absolutely correct that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, not what we think the Supreme Court should have said it is. Nevertheless, in the case of Roe v. Wade, one would be hard pressed to justify the reasoning or decision based on the actual content of the Constitution. Even pro-choice legal scholars admit this. For example, the well-respected John Hart Ely wrote a critical analysis in the Yale Law Journal shortly after the decision was rendered. He wrote that the decision is “a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court—it won’t; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress or what the evidence suggests is society’s—it doesn’t. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf, 82 Yale Law Journal 920, 947 (1973) (emphasis in original).
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I don’t think the necessity defense would work even if abortion were illegal. (”It won’t fly because the law does not protect the lives of such unborn babies,….”) I don’t see how you can justify walking up to someone just because he’s an abortionist and killing him. I see why you want to make it like the trespass case, but I just don’t think it would work. And even if Tiller had been in the process of performing an abortion, I would think you’d have to be let’s say the father of the child or a close relative of the woman to use that defense. If he were performing an illegal abortion, your remedy would be to call the police and let them go in and stop him. You don’t just kill someone.
And if the girl had an escape path, tried to use it, he stops her, and she kills him — I see that as self defense and that’s a little different than her plotting to kill him because she thinks that’s the only way out. Your thoughts? I guess I think of necessity in a tort setting. Maybe that’s what my problem is.
Report comment to moderator
I think the writer who said it is a blow to the defense lawyers probably gets a kick out of the lawyers failing. Probably doesn’t care one bit about Roeder anyway and sees a slamdunk for prison or death anyway. Maybe the writer IS a lawyer and sees the whole thing through that lens. But it is odd.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, the Supremes interpret the Constitution, but you have to use the words of it in that interpretation. Roe v. Wade was made up out of whole cloth — it is not an enumerated right, it’s just hanging out there in the ether of the penumbras.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – I guess I think of necessity in a tort setting. Maybe that’s what my problem is.
Maybe that is the source of the confusion. Notably, this is not the first time a defendant who killed an abortionist has attempted to use the defense. The following article has some information about previous attempts, and it lists the four elements of the defense:
http://www.trosch.org/wri/nec-defh.htm
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, thank you for your intelligent reply at #17.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 12.23.09 AT 12:18 PM
Yes, the Supremes interpret the Constitution, but you have to use the words of it in that interpretation. Roe v. Wade was made up out of whole cloth — it is not an enumerated right, it’s just hanging out there in the ether of the penumbras.
-
did the Supremes interpretation on the issue of Roe v. Wade. Mean these issue should be done in a Hospital instead of the baby killing factors we have today?
Report comment to moderator
Joel #36 – You’re very welcome. You might also be interested in #31 as it responds to Musing who responded to you. Warm regards.
Report comment to moderator
XION, your points at #13 are well taken.
It is valid to point out that the selective media are not placing enough attention on the enemy combatants who were released. That does not fit their agenda or bias.
I knew what you meant by the word “secret” and the phrase “dead of night.” I can actually grasp good points made outside the rigid bounds of pure literalism. Legalists and literalists have a hard time grasping this, but they do use their rigid literalism to try to discredit good points with which they disagree.
Realistically, those released from Gitmo have already been known to go back to jihad and have actually killed more Americans. The “views” media do not care to take pains to draw our attention to such tragedies.
First and foremost, the worshipful mainstream media will subject all stories to a filter that would minimize or eliminate any story that might not further the Obama agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 31,
when you say:
“Nevertheless, in the case of Roe v. Wade, one would be hard pressed to justify the reasoning or decision based on the actual content of the Constitution.”
I respectfully note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with you.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 34,
apparently the Supreme court has several times disagreed wih you.
You may disagree with them, but their opinion is the operative opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 37
I believe that the medical community is better equipped to determine the appropriate venue for mediocal procedurwes than you would appear to be when you say:
“did the Supremes interpretation on the issue of Roe v. Wade. Mean these issue should be done in a Hospital instead of the baby killing factors we have today? “
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Conan – very interesting. Judging solely by your description above, it sounds like the agent may have been doing his job by seeing if you’d “break,” but when you didn’t he was more confident of your truthfulness. I’m sorry about your not getting the clearance, though.
But I didn’t do so well under the pressure, and yeah, maybe that was part of the point. Still, I am very glad I was just trying to get a job and not trying to clear myself of a false charge.
Report comment to moderator
Conanthelibrarian,
indeed the polygraph is, based on my reading, a very uncertian tool at best.
I am sorry for your experience.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:08 PM
Pastor Roy post 37
I believe that the medical community is better equipped to determine the appropriate venue for mediocal procedurwes than you would appear to be when you say:
“did the Supremes interpretation on the issue of Roe v. Wade. Mean these issue should be done in a Hospital instead of the baby killing factors we have today?
–
the baby killes are not part of the medical community and their killing are not a mediocal procedurwes. That is why their is no retriction on what they do.
Report comment to moderator
You can not use a false names at medical community in order to get a mediocal procedurwes, but the baby killing companies you can.
You can not treat someone under the age of 17 unless their lives are in danger with out permission from a parent or guarding at medical community, but the baby killing companies you can.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 45,
the people we are discussing are medical doctors with a much highler level of education, I suggest, than you have in medical procedures and science.
The procedures we are discussing are legal in all 50 states in the unioon.
The procedures you are discussing are, under some conditons, medical necessities.
In short, your ignorance of this material would seem to be showing.
Report comment to moderator
sorry folks had to feed the troll
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 46,
let me see, and you are raising these points to protect the health and privacy of the patients?
The anti-abortion movement has politicized what is at root a medical procedure, and the negative impact on American society has been immense.
Fortunately the strong anti-abortion commmunity seems at best static in size and would at this point would seem to be increasingly ineffectual.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:33 PM
Pastor roy post 45,
the people we are discussing are medical doctors with a much highler level of education, I suggest, than you have in medical procedures and science.
The procedures we are discussing are legal in all 50 states in the unioon.
The procedures you are discussing are, under some conditons, medical necessities.
In short, your ignorance of this material would seem to be showing.
–
an you blind support of killing of babies are showing. Thees people are not doctors even if they have a medical and the make money off of killing children. an you can justify the killing of the babies all day lone. It shows that you have not moral standig or moral values at all.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:37 PM
Pastor Roy post 46,
let me see, and you are raising these points to protect the health and privacy of the patients?
The anti-abortion movement has politicized what is at root a medical procedure, and the negative impact on American society has been immense.
Fortunately the strong anti-abortion commmunity seems at best static in size and would at this point would seem to be increasingly ineffectual.
–
sorry killing of babies by people is just that killing of babies. If this medical procedure was done at the hostipal, how many children would be alive today.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 50,
when you say:
“an you blind support of killing of babies are showing.”
I suggest that perhaps your continuous focus on belief rather than the evidence is showing.
We have had this discussion often before. You raise many issues as certainties, but when called on to subtstantiate them, your material seems often very very thin.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 50/51,
since you insist on going down this path: what is the definiton of a baby? Why?
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:51 PM
Pastor Roy post 50,
when you say:
“an you blind support of killing of babies are showing.”
I suggest that perhaps your continuous focus on belief rather than the evidence is showing.
We have had this discussion often before. You raise many issues as certainties, but when called on to subtstantiate them, your material seems often very very thin.
–
sorry where is your proof that they are not killing babies? Oh wait that right you rely on far left baby killers for your proof.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:52 PM
Pastor roy post 50/51,
since you insist on going down this path: what is the definiton of a baby? Why?
-
true science not you baby killing science show a child start to fomer once the sprem hits the egg. Oh wait that not what baby killing science says. Which is not science because it is set up for the reason to support the killing of babies
Report comment to moderator
Pastor rpoy post 54,
Iasked for a defition of baby with support for this definition.
If you can not prove they arekillijnhg babies, then your claim is false as qwritten.
And your definition of a baby? The support for why your definition is correct?
Just because you are syaing they are killing babies does not mean that they are. You make many claims but historically are able to sustain few of them.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 55,
so it is when the sperm hits the eggg that a baby begins?
And this is because?
You have made your definiton but have not supported why your definition is valid.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #40 – I respectfully note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with you.
Well, that’s an interesting argument since the Supreme Court’s work is what’s being examined in the first place. Plus, I would note that the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was based largely on the doctrine of stare decisis (meaning we adhere to precedent, right or wrong); they did not point to a solid foundation for the Roe decision anchored in the text of the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
#43 – Conan – sorry to hear it. That does sound like an unfortunate situation.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:57 PM
Pastor rpoy post 54,
Iasked for a defition of baby with support for this definition.
If you can not prove they arekillijnhg babies, then your claim is false as qwritten.
And your definition of a baby? The support for why your definition is correct?
Just because you are syaing they are killing babies does not mean that they are. You make many claims but historically are able to sustain few of them
–
sorry but you have not provided any proof they are not killing babies?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 58,
so indeed you seem to be agreeing with my point.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 2:59 PM
Pastor roy post 55,
so it is when the sperm hits the eggg that a baby begins?
And this is because?
You have made your definiton but have not supported why your definition is valid
–
sorry you have provid no proof that it does not begain then>
Report comment to moderator
Pastor roy post 60,
but I have not made an assertion you have!
And as is becoming clear, you can not support your position with evidence or logic.
It is a posiiton of your belief.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 60,
so lets continue.
I can fertilize an egg with a sperm and put it in a petri dish for examination.
You apparenlty have claimed that it is the fertilization with the sperm that is critical.
I can take a skin cell, and using either IPSC procedures or SCNT procedures produce a cell identiocal to a fertilized egg.
Based on your argument it would seem that you either must show that there is some extrinsic objective measureable difference between the two OR arguably you must assert that both must be protected.
You evidence that they can based purely on examination be determined to be from either process?
If not, then I assume you believe both should be protected.
And your response?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 62,
actually it was you who made thge asserttion not me.
You do seem to be dmeonstratijnhg an unfamiliarityt with the process of debate or logic.
Something is not true because you say it is and then must be disproived. If you say something is true you should be in a posiiton to show that it is true.
Otherwise this is just your personal unfounded opinion.
Report comment to moderator
awh the reasons musing give for the killing of babies, such a sad sad sad little person
Report comment to moderator
Pasor Roy,
we saw the same dance when it came to the inerrancy of the Biblical texts and for that matter the plausiblity that Mark 16:9-20 were in the original texts of Mark.
You appear to make strong statements about what is true based on your beliefs and then appear to be dumbfounded when others disagree and provide evidence that yuou are incorrect.
It makes for an amusing argument, but you are adding no new information to the discussion by this process.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 66,
but of course you have not demonstrated that they are babies.
Nor can you.
It is sifgnificant I think that you do jnot appear to have dared to respond to my questions in post 64.
Report comment to moderator
We can make the following observations:
1) both Federal law and most people agree that immediately after birth a baby has the full rights of a human
2) pretty much all parties agree that befiore fertilization the egg is not a baby with the full rights of humans
Now those arguing against abortion ask what makes the time of birth significant?
By the same logic, what make the time of fertilization significant?
And those against abortion in general make no fact based response to this argument.
And the introduction of IPSC and SCNT procedures mean that any cell has the potential to become a live baby undergoing birth.
The problem is complex, but in admitting that, it also means that the simple answers are plausibly inadequate.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:16 PM
Pasor Roy,
we saw the same dance when it came to the inerrancy of the Biblical texts and for that matter the plausiblity that Mark 16:9-20 were in the original texts of Mark.
You appear to make strong statements about what is true based on your beliefs and then appear to be dumbfounded when others disagree and provide evidence that yuou are incorrect.
It makes for an amusing argument, but you are adding no new information to the discussion by this process.
–
sorry what evidence have you provided? you just put out the same old talking point of those on the left that have no moral values and look for a reason to support the killing of babies.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:17 PM
Pastor Roy post 66,
but of course you have not demonstrated that they are babies.
Nor can you.
It is sifgnificant I think that you do jnot appear to have dared to respond to my questions in post 64.
–
sorry where is your proof they are not babies?
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:22 PM
We can make the following observations:
1) both Federal law and most people agree that immediately after birth a baby has the full rights of a human
2) pretty much all parties agree that befiore fertilization the egg is not a baby with the full rights of humans
Now those arguing against abortion ask what makes the time of birth significant?
By the same logic, what make the time of fertilization significant?
And those against abortion in general make no fact based response to this argument.
And the introduction of IPSC and SCNT procedures mean that any cell has the potential to become a live baby undergoing birth.
The problem is complex, but in admitting that, it also means that the simple answers are plausibly inadequate.
—
same old same old reason to say I believe in killing of babies. May be you need new talking points.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 70.
my apologies, Pastor Roy, but in this case you appear to be making an assertoion regarind g baby killing.
If so, provide the evidence.
If not, then please indicate that this is your personal opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
so the first time I made any statements of fact on this issue was in post 69.
Do you disagree with the points in this post?
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:37 PM
Pastor Roy post 70.
my apologies, Pastor Roy, but in this case you appear to be making an assertoion regarind g baby killing.
If so, provide the evidence.
If not, then please indicate that this is your personal opinion
–
I am sorry but where is your proof they are not killing babies?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 75,
but I did not assert that they were not.
You asserted that they were, so where is your evidence?
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:43 PM
Pastor Roy post 75,
but I did not assert that they were not.
You asserted that they were, so where is your evidence?
Report comment
–
sorry not an answer since you support the killing of babies, please provide a proof they are not killing babies.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
there are at least three cases here:
a) they are not killing anything
b) they are killing something, but it is dopes not have the full rights of a human
c) they are killing a baby
You are explicitly asserting point c. So hthis leavesyou with the responsiblity of:
demonstrating with evidence that c is in fact correct, OR showing that that a, b, and c are the only options AND that a and b are false.
This is straightforward logical analysis.
And your demonstration of one of the two options required to sustain your argument?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
it ie quite clear now:
1) that you have no evidence that they arekilling babies
2) that you do not have a grasp of first order logic
We can perhaps have a tutorial on logic if you like, but until then it would seem that you quite simply are providing no argument for your point at all.
Which is strange, since it appears you have strong feelings on this point. I would thgink that you would therefore want to support it.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:49 PM
Pastor Roy,
there are at least three cases here:
a) they are not killing anything
b) they are killing something, but it is dopes not have the full rights of a human
c) they are killing a baby
You are explicitly asserting point c. So hthis leavesyou with the responsiblity of:
demonstrating with evidence that c is in fact correct, OR showing that that a, b, and c are the only options AND that a and b are false.
This is straightforward logical analysis.
And your demonstration of one of the two options required to sustain your argument?
-=-
sorry that is not proof it is based on someone tlaking points.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:51 PM
Pastor Roy,
it ie quite clear now:
1) that you have no evidence that they arekilling babies
2) that you do not have a grasp of first order logic
We can perhaps have a tutorial on logic if you like, but until then it would seem that you quite simply are providing no argument for your point at all.
Which is strange, since it appears you have strong feelings on this point. I would thgink that you would therefore want to support it.
–
since when do you use logic in a debate? you views are not based on logic but on someone talking points provide to you.
Report comment to moderator
The followoing article:
http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(09)00335-X
demonstrate that any cell is capable of being reprogrammed to produce embryos. IN fact after reprogramming, it appears that it is identical to a fertilized egg.
As such, given the approach suggested by Pastor Roy, I suggest that those who argue that it is abortion to destroy a fertilized egg have now also have the responsibility of showing why an IPSC programmed skin cell is also not worthy of such protections.
I am interested to hear their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 81,
when you say:
“since when do you use logic in a debate? you views are not based on logic but on someone talking points provide to you.”
then I challenge you to find the source of my talking points!
I can assure you that for good or ill, I in general come up with my argumentation on my own. My arguments are sometimes quirky, but in the main they are all mine!
P.S. and for example you have found the IPSC or SCNT argument I raised elsewhere?
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 3:58 PM
The followoing article:
http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(09)00335-X
demonstrate that any cell is capable of being reprogrammed to produce embryos. IN fact after reprogramming, it appears that it is identical to a fertilized egg.
As such, given the approach suggested by Pastor Roy, I suggest that those who argue that it is abortion to destroy a fertilized egg have now also have the responsibility of showing why an IPSC programmed skin cell is also not worthy of such protections.
I am interested to hear their arguments.
-
th catch 22 to arugment to support the killing of babies. try again.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:02 PM
Pastor Roy post 81,
when you say:
“since when do you use logic in a debate? you views are not based on logic but on someone talking points provide to you.”
then I challenge you to find the source of my talking points!
I can assure you that for good or ill, I in general come up with my argumentation on my own. My arguments are sometimes quirky, but in the main they are all mine!
P.S. and for example you have found the IPSC or SCNT argument I raised elsewhere?
–
the catch 22 to arugment to support the killing of babies by say i am not using talking point why? because the killing of babies show how moraly wrong someone is. strike two try again.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 84,
well indeed it is a catch 22, but it is a catch 22 because your egg fertilizatioon argument is not well posed or founded.
And of course since it is not well posed or founded, it indeed does undermine the rigid anti-abortiojnh position.
And since you appear to have a strong belief in the strong anti-aboritojn positionn, this is a very difficult argument for you to consider (hence your catch 22 statement).
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:06 PM
Pastor Roy post 84,
well indeed it is a catch 22, but it is a catch 22 because your egg fertilizatioon argument is not well posed or founded.
And of course since it is not well posed or founded, it indeed does undermine the rigid anti-abortiojnh position.
And since you appear to have a strong belief in the strong anti-aboritojn positionn, this is a very difficult argument for you to consider (hence your catch 22 statement).
–
the catch 22 to arugment to support the killing of babies, make the other person the issue. so as not to deal with the fact the logic of killing of babies proves just moraly bankrupt someone is and it hold no logic at all.
Report comment to moderator
oh by the way the was strike three, one out
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Ropy post 84,
indeed what the IPSC and SCNT example demonstrates is what we have already known: the genetic material to create an individual is present in every cell.
And yet we kill cells every day and there is no plausible model which would keep us from killing some cells.
So the “potential of creating a human being” is now a difficult argument to sustain.
Which leaves us with the obaervation that the development of a baby is, as should be obvious, a continuing process which stated correctly styarts from the time there is an embryo (we can quibble on the correct word here) until birth.
Any statement of an explciit pont at which there is a magic transform to become human is purely arbitrary. It is as a side note, also not Biblically supported.
And once it is understood that there is a continuing process, a variety of reasonable models can be considered. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Bible provides little real guidance here, and this becomes a social and political discussion of our society.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 88,
by failing to provide any data to support your position, you haven’t even pitched the ball!!
but keep hoping Pastor Roy, keep hoping!
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:13 PM
Pastor Ropy post 84,
indeed what the IPSC and SCNT example demonstrates is what we have already known: the genetic material to create an individual is present in every cell.
And yet we kill cells every day and there is no plausible model which would keep us from killing some cells.
So the “potential of creating a human being” is now a difficult argument to sustain.
Which leaves us with the obaervation that the development of a baby is, as should be obvious, a continuing process which stated correctly styarts from the time there is an embryo (we can quibble on the correct word here) until birth.
Any statement of an explciit pont at which there is a magic transform to become human is purely arbitrary. It is as a side note, also not Biblically supported.
And once it is understood that there is a continuing process, a variety of reasonable models can be considered. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Bible provides little real guidance here, and this becomes a social and political discussion of our society.
–
back to talking point and fail science again to prove that it is ok to kill babies, strike one again.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 91,
but I have provided good science which suggests that perhaps an embryo is not a baby.
Consider the IPSC case.
You by contrast have provided no evidence to show that a fertilized egg is a baby.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:15 PM
Pastor Roy post 88,
by failing to provide any data to support your position, you haven’t even pitched the ball!!
but keep hoping Pastor Roy, keep hoping!
–
now it the old you have not provide any data to support your position. at the same time not provide any real true data that has not come out of the baby killing companies researchers. Strike two
Report comment to moderator
BY musing 12.23.09 AT 4:17 PM
Pastor Roy post 91,
but I have provided good science which suggests that perhaps an embryo is not a baby. Consider the IPSC case.
You by contrast have provided no evidence to show that a fertilized egg is a baby.
–
so where was the real science? I see only junk science back by the money of baby killers. Strike three, two outs
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy post 93,
ah wonderful.
You have proivided no evidence.
You have not addrssed the IPSC case.
You have not addressed the continuing process argument.
Indeed you have addressed nothing at all.
To use your analogy, since you seem to be claiming to be the pitcher, do you ever intend to come to the mound?
P.S. but please keep it up: it allows me to slowly develop with no interruption the basic failure of the strong anti-abortion argument.:-)
Report comment to moderator
It is perhaps worth noting that the strong abortion argument: any abortion is allowed at any time during pregnancy is also flawed: few would argue that it is acceptable for example to abort a fetus just prior to birth unless there were overwhelming risk to the life or health of the mother.
So the reality is that there is a a strong consensus that abortion shold be controlled to osme level.
If the strong anti-abortion forces, however, are arguing for the total elimination of abortion, it would appear that their argument is:
1) not based on the data
2) not logically based
3) not Biblically based
And they wonder why it is faring poorly in the political arena?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
shall we now get back to the question of the inerrancy and textual integrity of the scriptures?
It was almost as much fun as this effort was.
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:21 PM
Pastor Roy post 93,
ah wonderful.
You have proivided no evidence.
You have not addrssed the IPSC case.
You have not addressed the continuing process argument.
Indeed you have addressed nothing at all.
To use your analogy, since you seem to be claiming to be the pitcher, do you ever intend to come to the mound?
P.S. but please keep it up: it allows me to slowly develop with no interruption the basic failure of the strong anti-abortion argument.:-)
–
now we are back to make the poster the issue, to cover up the fact their is no logic in the killing of babies. strike one
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:25 PM
It is perhaps worth noting that the strong abortion argument: any abortion is allowed at any time during pregnancy is also flawed: few would argue that it is acceptable for example to abort a fetus just prior to birth unless there were overwhelming risk to the life or health of the mother.
So the reality is that there is a a strong consensus that abortion shold be controlled to osme level.
If the strong anti-abortion forces, however, are arguing for the total elimination of abortion, it would appear that their argument is:
1) not based on the data
2) not logically based
3) not Biblically based
And they wonder why it is faring poorly in the political arena?
-
now it agian back to the poor old talking point to try an say it is ok to kill babies, stike two
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:26 PM
Pastor Roy,
shall we now get back to the question of the inerrancy and textual integrity of the scriptures?
It was almost as much fun as this effort was.
-
Now it is back lets try and bring back past fights, in order to change the issue for the fact again there is no logic at all in killing babies.
Report comment to moderator
that is strike three and a third out for the failed logic of musing trying to prove it is ok to kill and make money off of the killing of babies,
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
are you ever going to enter any data, evidence or logic???
Report comment to moderator
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:35 PM
Pastor Roy,
are you ever going to enter any data, evidence or logic???
-
sorry but due to your lack of date, evidence or logic in your support of the killing of babies. You have no grounds to ask anyone to prove anything.
please pick up your hat and keys on your way out thank you/
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy 12.23.09 AT 4:41 PM
musing 12.23.09 AT 4:35 PM
Pastor Roy,
are you ever going to enter any data, evidence or logic???
-
sorry but due to your lack of data, evidence or logic in your support of the killing of babies. You have no grounds to ask anyone to prove anything.
please pick up your hat and keys on your way out thank you/
Report comment to moderator
Muzing #61 – Buzzy post 58, so indeed you seem to be agreeing with my point.
You’ve had several points, so I’m not sure exactly what you mean. I think what I said was you were correct in #28 to the degree your assertion was that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, not what we think they should have said it was. However, I qualified that by suggesting that there is a sense in which Joel Mark was right to point out the lack of a substantive basis in the constitutional text itself for Roe’s reasoning or result. In support of this latter position, I quoted an eminent (pro-choice) legal scholar as follows: “[Roe v. Wade] is a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court—it won’t; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress or what the evidence suggests is society’s—it doesn’t. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf, 82 Yale Law Journal 920, 947 (1973) (emphasis in original).
Later, I noted that the Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, refused to overrule Roe based on the notion that we’re sticking with precedent, whether it was rightly or wrongly decided, and not based on the idea that Roe had a solid basis in the text of the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – Later, I noted that the Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, refused to overrule Roe based on the notion that we’re sticking with precedent, whether it was rightly or wrongly decided, and not based on the idea that Roe had a solid basis in the text of the Constitution
–
If I am understand what you just wrote the Court could have over turn Roe because it does not have a solid basis in the text of the Constitution. But decide against it due to a past decission correct?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy #106 – The Court does have the power to overrule its prior decisions. Normally, they don’t do so because once they’ve decided an issue, they don’t want to go back and decide the same issue again. The legal name for that principle is stare decisis.
Sometimes they make an exception to the rule, however, when the first decision was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice if it continues in force. Obviously, there has not yet been a majority of the Supreme Court that has felt that way about Roe v. Wade, which is why it hasn’t been overruled.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 105,
my basic thesis is and has been that we can discuss the premises all we like, but Roe V Wade is:
1) the law of thge land
2) has not been overturned when rentered before the court (althouhg it sometimes has been trimmed)
3) and as you note, based on stare decisis, it is unlikley that they will ever fully repeal Reo V Wade
And it appears that you agree with t his basic status.
You yourself state:
“Sometimes they make an exception to the rule, however, when the first decision was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice if it continues in force.”
I believe you will be hard put to make an argument which would become mainstream that Roe V Wade is such a case.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #108 – I don’t think anyone disputes your points (1) and (2). Whether it will ever be overturned is impossible to tell because that would be predicting the future. Certainly it does not seem likely to be overturned any time soon, but the long-term future includes hundreds of years. Who knows whether it will be overturned 100 years from now. Plessy v. Ferguson, for example, stood for 60 years before being overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 105,
my sense is that if this issue is seriously of interest, perhaps a more fruitful discusison is what forces are in place to change the makeup of the court.
If the make up were to change significantly, then perhaps certain rulings might be revisited.
Without such a change, however, it is unclear to me what forces are in place which would drive a major change such as you are apparently describing.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 109.
if we look at the historical trajectory, particularly in the context of recent technical developments, then it would seem unlikley that the strong anti-abortion position is likely to thrive.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – Without such a change, however, it is unclear to me what forces are in place which would drive a major change such as you are apparently describing.
True, but I was speaking of the long term. Certainly 50 years from now all of the justices will have been replaced, and only God knows what the composition of the Court will be like at that point.
If we look at the historical trajectory, particularly in the context of recent technical developments, then it would seem unlikley that the strong anti-abortion position is likely to thrive.
I’m not following. What do you mean by “technical developments.” Are you talking about technology or some technical aspects of law, or what? Please elaborate.
Also, other factors besides sentiment regarding abortion specifically can come into play. For example, a revival on the Court of what’s been termed the “new federalism” (meaning tailoring back on the expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause) arose in the mid-1990s. One can imagine a scenario in which this spills over into other parts of the Constitution so that the justices decide that it’s a political issue for the states to decide, rather than remaining in the domain of the federal courts forever. I’m not saying this will happen or even that it’s likely, but just raising it as an example of a basis for overturning Roe that is not directly founded on pro-choice or pro-life political beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Why shouldn’t Roeder be allowed to argue any defense he pleases, just as the jury should be fully informed of their powers as jurers?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy post 112,
I am also talking about the long term.
50 years form now, I suggest that on the scale of issues this country is focused on, abortion will be an after thought.
As I have posted, the technology is chanigng and with it the very meaning and under pinning of the anti-abortion movement is challenged: if any cell can become a human, what then is so important about a fertilized egg for example.
What we will see, because we are seeing it, is that for the center the abortion issue will become more nuanced, and with it the way abortion is handled wil undoubtedly change.
But as you have so eloquently presented, Roe v Wade is unlikley to actually be over turned.
Report comment to moderator
ccc post 113,
perhaps because the defense must be germane to the charges under considration?
A court is not political theater.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!