Does Kermit deserve the death penalty for this?

[regexcellent]

Obviously, this all hinges on the is abortion murder question.

No it doesn't, because partial birth abortions are murder plain and simple and only the fringe denies this. Dr. Tiller was known nationwide for being one of a tiny number of doctors, less than five, in the whole country who would perform the kind of abortions he did. They were only legal in cases where birth would harm the mother, and even then only in a handful of states. So he would claim "mental harm" from it and became the abortionist of last resort nationwide. He would assert the risk of harm to mental health without even having seen the patients himself or referring them to a psychiatrist.

[Hauldren Collider]

Thus making vigilante 'justice' even more repellent.

Yes, vigilante justice is bad. But in extreme cases, vigilante justice can be good. It depends on the benevolence of the current government.

[Hauldren Collider]

The obvious example for where vigilante justice can be good is the Godwin case, by the way.

[Aeson]

Or when a poster on an internet forum makes you feel bad enough about yourself. Then it's ok to suggest murder as a solution.

[Ben Kenobi]

You mean the doctor who was brutally murdered by people like you as he was attending church? Good work enforcing your medieval views through violence and murder, you ****ing hypocrite.

So he IS representative of the pro abortion movement? Thank you. You can't simultaneously call him a saint of the movement without embracing what the man did - abortions up till birth.

[DinoDoc]

Kermit Gosnell About to Become Right-Wing's Pet Rock for April

Is this how liberals describe mass murder now? [R]egulatory failure that caused the deaths of a few poor people

[notyoueither]

Then you seriously need to rethink your priorities for what is horrible. There's little biological difference between late term and born. Killing a baby is certainly horrible... but that's because it has parent(s) that intend to love and care for it. Otherwise, it's only horrible in more of a "all life is sacred" type deal... which is admirable and a worthy set of ideals to live up to, but highly impractical considering the vast amount of human suffering in the world.

So if both parents want to kill the infant, that's OK?

[Zevico]

Roger Simon puts it plainly:

The trial of Dr. Gosnell is a potential time bomb exploding in the conventional liberal narrative on abortion itself. This is about the A-word.

No feeling human being can read this story or watch it on TV without being confronted with the obvious conclusion — like it or not — that abortion is murder.

It may be murder with extenuating circumstances (rape, survival of the mother, etc.) but it is murder nonetheless. Dr. Gosnell — monster though he is — has accidentally shoved that uncomfortable truth in our faces.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/04/13/gosnellgate/

Murder is ordinarily a crime. I see no reason to depart from that principle any more. My view is that, except to save the life of another, no person's life should be blotted out for eternity. The child that is a product of a tragic occurrence is still a child and still deserves to live. If we depart from this rule, we trod the path to Dr Gosnell's hell.

If I were satisfied that his execution would prevent other ghouls of his kind from taking his place, I would support it. However, I have not given the subject of capital punishment enough thought to make up my mind on the subject.

[Krill]

While I think our constitution is better than anyone else's, it's not perfect.

This means sweet FA you know, and it's one of the reasons people hate America. Your values are your own, stop trying to cram them down others' necks, it's not an argument that they are the best in any absolute sense, it's just a personal opinion.

Laws aren't perfect. Laws aren't always just. What is morally right and what is legal are not the same.

We try to make laws correlate to morals as much as we can, and we use them because consistency is in many ways even more important than justice.

The obvious example for where vigilante justice can be good is the Godwin case, by the way.

Godwin case doesn't even make much sense considering that it transcends any single society and instead was a species wide issue: the majority of humanity decided that racial genocide was wrong and stopped it, in which case a single member of the offending society isn't acting as an individual vigilante but as part of the humanity.

[Tupac Shakur]

Croatia.

I was talking about loinburger's flag. Maybe I misread the conversation (wasn't paying much attention), but I'm glad I did because Tongans are a million times cooler than the wannabe Nazis in Croatia.

[kentonio]

So he IS representative of the pro abortion movement? Thank you. You can't simultaneously call him a saint of the movement without embracing what the man did - abortions up till birth.

The only person who called him a 'saint of the movement' was you, you dishonest little ****. Yet another instance where you're incapable of making a rational argument and instead have to fall back on lying your weasel little mouth off to try and make a point.

Incidentally, please explain this to me..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

[kentonio]

Yes, vigilante justice is bad. But in extreme cases, vigilante justice can be good. It depends on the benevolence of the current government.

Is America now equivalent to Nazi Germany? Because last I checked, you've had a pretty stable governmental model for quite a while now. I'm also not aware of abortion law suddenly changing towards the pro-choice side significantly in the last few decades. With that in mind, acts of vigilantism now are not brave and heroic acts, they are the selfish brutality of people who are unable to gather enough support for changing the law, and instead prefer to terrorize their way to their goals. Yes, you are literally supporting terrorists.

[regexcellent]

You don't need a ruthless dictatorship for vigilantism to be justified.

The state has a compelling interest to stop vigilante justice. People have a compelling interest to stop evildoers from doing their thing. Dr. Tiller was a horrible man, period, and deserved what he got. His death saved countless lives. The man who killed him did a good thing, even if it was illegal.

[DinoDoc]

Regarding the Tiller threadjack: It does bring up an interesting point. Why was Tiller's murder international news while this story was struggling until now to get coverage beyond conservative outlets?

[notyoueither]

**** you. The animal murdered a doctor performing legal procedures in a supposed democracy. You think Tiller was doing something immoral? How about if someone decides that your family are immoral for eating meat and decides to murder them? Would that be heroic?

There are many examples where the law is not just, and in some of them it is entirely morally justified for private citizens to act to stop injustice.