Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, December 29, 2009

’Defense of others’ mulled in abortion case

December 29, 2009

Advertisement

— A Kansas judge will hear further arguments on whether a man who has confessed to shooting a Wichita abortion provider may present evidence on the “use of force in defense of another.”

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert has scheduled a Jan. 8 hearing on the issue in the murder case against 51-year-old Scott Roeder of Kansas City, Mo.

Roeder is accused of shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 at the doctor’s Wichita church. Roeder’s trial begins Jan. 11.

Last week, Wilbert barred Roeder’s lawyers from putting on a so-called necessity defense. But he also said he would later consider whether to allow specific evidence or argument on the use of force for the defense of another before deciding whether to let the jury hear it.

Comments

LoveThsLife 4 years, 3 months ago

Porch Person:

What exactly is my religious background? Please tell me I would love to know what you suppose my personal beliefs are...

If the answers were easy, I doubt there would be much of a debate...

I'm not forcing people to "go forth and multiply". That would require forcing individuals to have sex, and that would be quite ridiculous. However, I assume you were referring to the fact that I am critical of abortion when it is used as a method of birth control. Indeed, I am. Especially when there are other options available.

In my post I thought I demonstrated both aspects of the debate I found valid. Which is important when you are thinking critically about an issue. There are almost always valid points in an opposing argument, and it's foolish not take them seriously.

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

LoveThsLife,

Ok, how do you go about deciding to tell someone what they can or can not do with their own bodies with regard to reproduction, all the while avoiding invading their privacy? At what point does it end? With abortion? With contraception? With denial of sex education?

You want to force people to "go forth and multiply" based upon the religious beliefs you're studiously masking. Problem is that, if you really want to go "all the way" towards protection of life, you have to "go all the way". That means universal health care. That means pacifism. Etc, etc. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

The "God argument" is a definite problem for you, no matter how flippantly you dismiss it. You want to be all righteous about telling others what to do when your own religious background is full of ethical contradictions that, when examined, take much of the "high road" from your argument.

0

LoveThsLife 4 years, 3 months ago

Porch Person:

"What do you think of those eventualities? Do you think that Dr. Tiller deserved to die in his own church for a procedure which is absolutely legal? Do you think you know the story behind every abortion, enough to pass judgment from whatever stance you subscribe to?"

Was someone murdering him the right thing to do? No, it is illegal to kill someone.

I obviously don't know the story behind every abortion that is why I am questioning some of the arguments I am hearing. I think many arguments I hear are quite skewed. Of course there will be "exceptional circumstances". I guess I just don't agree with the argument that it is every woman's right to have an abortion because for some situations it is necessary.

I think one can go too far on either side of the issue. Should abortion be avoided at all costs even when rape results in a pregnancy or the mother's life is at risk? No. But on the flip side, should abortion be allowed for every person who decides that being pregnant is inconvenient? I don't agree with that either.

0

denak 4 years, 3 months ago

Cait48,

I did a quick search and from what I can tell is that "no" the prosecution can not appeal to a higher court.

For those who are interested, I found a good link that discusses this issue. The link is to jury instructions in Conneticut. I think it pretty much sums up what the state would have to do in order to get an conviction and what the jury would have to consider when deciding whether or not Roeder is guilty.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Criminal/part2/2.8-1.htm

Dena:)

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 3 months ago

To those legal eagles out there: if this judge permits this does the prosecution have any legal recourse to a higher court? Honestly, from what I can tell the defense is outside the legal limits of what the state permits but judges tend to be little gods in their own court rooms and I don't know what is/isn't permissible. I'm sure every district court judge in the state is watching this closely. I know the nation is, as CNN is reporting it. Someone brought up a point earlier; this occurred in front of a church full of people. One hopes the children were sequestered in another part of the church but I'm sure there were at least some children in the sanctuary at the time. Is there any legal recourse for the trauma these people, especially the children, must have suffered? This man's actions directly affected more than just Dr.Tiller and his family but a whole community of people. It wasn't just a murder, it was an assassination. I am sincerely glad I have never had to live through the terror of such a moment and feel for the people that did. Although only one man died and not many people, in my opinion this man is no different from Tim McVeigh.

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

LoveThsLife,

Ok, I stand corrected. We've gone from Dr. Tiller committing third term abortions to Dr. Tiller was performing abortions, period. You have a problem with abortions. I do too. However, I don't have a problem with women choosing to do what they want with their own bodies because I don't know the circumstances. Maybe they got raped. Maybe the rapist was a relative. Maybe they didn't want to get pregnant. Etc, etc....

What do you think of those eventualities? Do you think that Dr. Tiller deserved to die in his own church for a procedure which is absolutely legal? Do you think you know the story behind every abortion, enough to pass judgment from whatever stance you subscribe to?

0

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

The problem is your annoying trolling, Jacob123 (aka Arminius), followed by userid whack-a-mole that you seem to like play.

Just because you're disconnected with reality, doesn't mean you need to share your loony thoughts with the rest of us.

Get a new hobby. Or a part-time job FFS.

0

LoveThsLife 4 years, 3 months ago

Porch Person:

"I see that you are uncomfortable with the revelation that more terminations of pregnancy occur outside of human intervention than with human intervention. I also see that you and your colleagues feel you have the “wrath o' God” on your side but that you can't justify why “God” has that authority. Pretty convenient to absolve “God” whenever you guys do something “unethical” in his name."

I have to respond to this first. I found it quite amusing. First of all, this is not a religious debate. I never brought religion into it you did. Second of all, I have no problem with the fact that nature terminates pregnancy more often than man. I guess in my personal view of the world I accept the fact our bodies aren't perfect and stuff happens. Not sure where the whole "Wrath of God" stuff fit in to anything, but I did find it quite funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Again, I am not arguing about the reality of developmental issues in a fetus. You need to re-read my statement if you think I was.

"You say that what is legal is not always ethical but you have absolutely no problem with your colleagues distorting the facts on abortions and some conditions which present to the clinic. Such misrepresentations are “not ethical”, are they?"

Who said I don't have a problem with fact distorting. I was just saying that I don't think that just because something is legal makes it ethical..in regards to first term abortions. I don't think it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy just because you don't want the baby. In most first term abortions that is exactly what is going on.

"I noted that most of your colleagues deny conditions like hydrocephalus / ancephalus / etc altogether in an effort to portray Dr. Tiller and others as killing viable fetuses."

Who exactly has denied that? If so, they are obviously ignorant.

In conclusion, not everyone who is uncomfortable with abortion is a right wing extremist. Nor are they necessarily in the dark about congenital abnormalities. I am questioning your claims that every person that walked into Dr.Tiller's practice was carrying a child who was non-viable or who's health/life was in jeopardy as a result of the pregnancy. I believe those are two very good questions.

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

Tiller was the victim a very late term abortion. What is the problem? His mother didn't consent?

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight,

So I assume you're all for universal health care.....

(laughter)

Such a position would be consistent with your "pro-life advocate and staunch defender of children in the womb" stance....

(laughter)

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

LoveThisLife,

There are no "arguments" regarding some of the conditions which present to an OB/GYN clinic late in some pregnancies. They are well documented developmental pathologies. It isn't an abstract argument.

===

You say that what is legal is not always ethical but you have absolutely no problem with your colleagues distorting the facts on abortions and some conditions which present to the clinic. Such misrepresentations are "not ethical", are they?

====

I see that you are uncomfortable with the revelation that more terminations of pregnancy occur outside of human intervention than with human intervention. I also see that you and your colleagues feel you have the "wrath o' God" on your side but that you can't justify why "God" has that authority. Pretty convenient to absolve "God" whenever you guys do something "unethical" in his name.

====

I noted that most of your colleagues deny conditions like hydrocephalus / ancephalus / etc altogether in an effort to portray Dr. Tiller and others as killing viable fetuses.

That's a pretty dishonest practice.

You responded by claiming that I called you a physician. I did not. I'm curious to know what you meant to express by such a response. Are you saying that physicians deny those presentations? Or are you just garfinkeling, like our friend Liberty_One does when he's run out of legitimate argument?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 3 months ago

Machiavelli,

Your description of "murderous nuts" who either kill or attempt to kill abortionists applies to about eight people in the United States.

As a pro-life advocate and staunch defender of children in the womb, I will agree with you that there are a handful of dangerous loose cannons out there.

0

LoveThsLife 4 years, 3 months ago

"One is that Dr. Tiller was performing first trimester abortions. First trimester abortions are legal, LoveThisLife. Are you saying that they are not?"

What is legal is not always ethical.

"Are you saying that the same procedure that an OB/Gyn can do is suddenly off-limits when Dr. Tiller performs them?"

I am saying that some of the arguments made previously regarding dead fetus syndrome and abortion clinics are not thoroughly thought out. Again, it is pretty rare that a doctor would have to induce labor for a fetus who has died in utero. In most cases, the body will have detected the was fetus dead and begin labor spontaneously. In some cases, a doctor may have to induce labor and if there are complications during a vaginal delivery they may have to do a c-section.

"Have you done research on the rate of miscarriage vs abortion? God seems to do more terminations than man does. I wonder what that does to your religious world-view?"

Ahh..the old blaming God argument.... I'm actually pretty comfortable in my personal beliefs. No, I don't think God is to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, or in one's body.

"Most, if not all, of your colleagues deny the conditions altogether, a rather dishonest gesture."

Who said I am doctor?

0

Mixolydian 4 years, 3 months ago

Absolutely should not be allowed as a defense, not legally, not morally. Roeder is a murderer nothing more.

And that's coming from someone who would vote in a heartbeat to outlaw abortion in every case except instances where the imminent physical life of the mother is in jeopardy (not "psychological health")

0

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

jaywalker: Ah. Gotcha. Sorry!

0

jaywalker 4 years, 3 months ago

funkdog:

" 'Defense of others' mulled in abortion case. "

My problem's not with the first three words, it's with the last three. .

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

LoveThisLife,

You're right. Third trimester abortions are rare. Less than .01% of all abortions. 91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Only 9% of abortions are performed in the second trimester. The limited number of providers of third trimester abortions in America means that people were having to travel long distances to go to Dr. Tiller's (and others) clinic. That distorted how many he was doing.

You make many assumptions in your post. One is that Dr. Tiller was performing first trimester abortions. First trimester abortions are legal, LoveThisLife. Are you saying that they are not? Are you claiming that those embryos are self-sustaining in the first trimester. Phill Kline tried to find something illegal in Dr. Tiller's practice, (an attempt that had Phill Kline breaking the law, not Dr. Tiller) and he found nothing.

Have you done research on the rate of miscarriage vs abortion? God seems to do more terminations than man does. I wonder what that does to your religious world-view?

Are you saying that the same procedure that an OB/Gyn can do is suddenly off-limits when Dr. Tiller performs them?

That is what you are saying, is it not? Or are you trying to portray Dr. Tiller as doing something other than what he is actually doing?

I do give you points for at least acknowledging that non-viable fetuses do present in the clinic. Most, if not all, of your colleagues deny the conditions altogether, a rather dishonest gesture.

0

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

LveThsLife says: "I am sure most of the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were actually elective abortions performed during the first trimester."

Are ya sure? Are ya really sure? Or do you just want that to be the case? 'Cause I myself have done some research on the subject. There were four or so doctors in the entire country performing third-term abortions. When you add up all the "rare" defects that will result in a baby dying soon after it's become unattached from the mother's umbilical chord, it becomes fairly easy to see why those four doctors are handling thousands of cases every year. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to tell a woman that she must carry and give birth to a fatally defective baby that has no hope of living. That is cruel and unusual.

0

LoveThsLife 4 years, 3 months ago

Porch-Person-

"Claiming that a couple who are going through the heartbreak of discovering that the fetus has no brain or dysfunctional, underdeveloped lungs and will never survive is not the same as the oft-misrepresented claim of anti-abortionists who state that “You're killing a baby who wants to talk to you when he grows up.”

Babies with no brains don't talk, or join the football team, or cheerlead, or vote Republican. They don't survive either. It's not the parent's fault and it's cynical dishonesty to use that tragedy for political gain."

Interesting argument...anencephaly is a pretty rare disorder...in the U.S it occurs in 1 of 150,000-200,000 infants each year.

In addition, most babies born with underdeveloped lungs are actually born premature.

There are very rare congenital problems that may affect lung growth such as dwarfism, congenital diaphragmatic hernia. As I stated earlier, these problems are very rare.

I am sure most of the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were actually elective abortions performed during the first trimester.

In addition, I had read commentary in other articles claiming that third trimester abortions were necessary if a fetus had died in utero. Let me make it clear, if something of that nature happens it is dangerous to the mother's health, and could be considered a medical emergency. The woman's own ob-gyn will either perform a D&C, induce labor, or perform a c-section depending on the situation. They are certainly not going to send her to some abortion clinic.

http://www.pediatricweb.com/nspeds/article.asp?ArticleID=859&ArticleType=9#2 http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/index.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

0

georgiahawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Unless you knew Tiller, don't make assumptions as to what sort of man he was, good or bad. He could have been a great human being, he could have been the scum of the earth, it makes no diference in this legal case, but quit making unfounded assumptions about him.

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years, 3 months ago

I think Tiller was an incredibly great man, who provided a service to those who took responsibility for their pregnancy and wanted to choose a different course in life. This man literally gave women the freedom so many Religious Rite murderous nuts want so badly to dubiously and questionably diminish and eliminate. So bad is their need to repress women that they murder for that outrageously heinous need.

0

Machiavelli_mania 4 years, 3 months ago

What about the little girls sitting in church who literally saw such a horrific thing happen in a so-called sanctuary of "god"? Do they! get consideration as to the effect of this ghastly murderous act as well? Who will bring their personal psychological issues into play in all this, for they will indeed be profound?

How many people will psychologically suffer from literally seeing this event happen???

0

ralphralph 4 years, 3 months ago

Point of View - I think Tiller probably was a sleeze who got rich killing viable babies and who protected his cash flow by purchasing politicians like former-Gov-turned-TV-star Kathy and her appointed lackies. Point of Law - You can't kill people under these circumstances, or anything like them, and no court will recognize a claim of a necessity defense in this case. Any use of force in defense of another, to be sanctioned by law, must be exercised when the danger of harm to the other is imminent and not otherwise avoidable. It is not sufficient that you have decided that "he has killed, and he'll kill again". This was an assassination and there is no legal defense.

0

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

jaywalker: The LJW likely took the term "Defense of Others" directly from the defenses' motion. See how it's got "quotes" around it in the headline? That means that the LJW borrowed the language from someone else.

0

Polly_Gomer 4 years, 3 months ago

Justifiable?

You are a wackjob.

The first post said it all, it's a murder case, abortion has nothing to do with it.

0

staff04 4 years, 3 months ago

Is the logical extreme of this "defense of others" defense that it would be legally acceptable to murder a drunk person as they try to get in their car to drive home?

Or any driver, drunk or not?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 3 months ago

georgiahawk,

Absolutely not. Because of his own admission of guilt, I believe it's clear that Roeder is guilty of first degree murder. He should be punished as such, and he should be held up as another terrible example of what is wrong with society.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 3 months ago

Maybe this guy should be charged with not taking care of his own son. I understand he didn't pay much in child support. His wife didn't get an abortion, so he's happy, but after that the deadbeat could care less what happens.

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

that is the rare case, tiller offered no questions late term aabortions for profit.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 3 months ago

"Murdering someone in his own church has nothing to do with social engineering or eugenics"

And your lecture to STRS is unfounded as you obviously don't understand or didn't see the comment STRS is responding too..

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

Jacob123,

There is this condition call "hydrocephalus" that you should look up. In this condition, the brain is not there but the area where the brain should be is filled with a lot of fluid. Have you seen a hydrocephalic baby in real life? Their heads are huge, basketball sized. So big that they don't make the passage from womb to outside world unless they are "debrained" as you call it.

Of course, being the genius that you are, you probably recommend that such a wildly distorted fetus remain in the womb so that you can say that you are "preserving life".

Whatever.

Anyway, talking to someone who isn't aware of such obstetric conditions is like talking to someone who still believes resolutely in the Easter Bunny.

On the other hand, talking to someone who is aware of such obstetric conditions and who then pretends that such a fetus is, in fact, viable and who goes on to use that misrepresentation to further his politics is like talking to .......well, I'm struggling to find accurate terms that would stay within the LJ World Terms of Service and I am failing, I'm sorry.

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

Is it as hard as telling man that his wife or girlfriend dimembered and debrained his healthy child in utero? Any of these men would be justified in murdering the murderer of his child.

0

georgeofwesternkansas 4 years, 3 months ago

porch_person, the fact that we are on this site debunks that charge....

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight,

Murdering someone in his own church has nothing to do with social engineering or eugenics.

Claiming that a couple who are going through the heartbreak of discovering that the fetus has no brain or dysfunctional, underdeveloped lungs and will never survive is not the same as the oft-misrepresented claim of anti-abortionists who state that "You're killing a baby who wants to talk to you when he grows up."

Babies with no brains don't talk, or join the football team, or cheerlead, or vote Republican. They don't survive either. It's not the parent's fault and it's cynical dishonesty to use that tragedy for political gain.

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

On a scale from 1 to 10 this murder was a 1 or 2.

0

georgiahawk 4 years, 3 months ago

STRS, just curious, is Roeder a hero to you?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 3 months ago

beobatcher,

Your comment has all the smuggness one would expect from someone who believes in social engineering and eugenics. You probably look to Margaret Sanger as a heroine.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 3 months ago

LJW, you need a new headline writer. This kind of thing happens way too frequently. 'Defense of others' my heinie. The man strolled into a church and committed murder. I'm a spiritual man so I'm curious how the religious right looks upon that sacrilege and still backs him. This defense holds no water and I'm bothered this is going through further hearings.

"In my opinion they are a good case for more abortions, maybe their parents should have looked at that option."

Beobachter once again revealing why he's one of the leading @#!$&!*#!'s on this site. That's disgusting, beo, even by your standards.

0

porch_person 4 years, 3 months ago

Jacob123,

Nope. Dr. Tiller was in his own church when he was murdered. He wasn't in the act of killing anyone while he was in his own church. Scott Roeder knew that.

Dr. Tiller's practice was legal and above board. Phill Kline tried to find something wrong with the practice and he failed, even after he exceeded what he could legally do. Phill Kline's office was severely dressed down by the Kansas Supreme Court for its behavior in the Tiller inquisition, a court that is hardly a liberal body.

The law allows for defense but the court does not have to provide a soapbox for a murderer to argue against a legal practice.

All the jury has to decide is "Was Scott Roeder legally competent / "sane" at the time of Tiller's murder?" and "Did Scott Roeder actually commit the murder of George Tiller?"

What verdict do you think they will find?

Personally, I would be working on some sort of deal, any deal to keep this out of court. Roeder is going to get the maximum if he goes to trial on this case. He's not going to "get off". Anything less than the maximum is the only victory Scott Roeder's attorneys can shoot for.

0

oldvet 4 years, 3 months ago

He only has to convince one...

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

Let the man have whatever defense he wants and let a jury of his peers judge him. This is how our system works. If he beats the system he wont be the first or last.

0

beobachter 4 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Jacob123 4 years, 3 months ago

It was jas ustifiable as fire bombing German children. No one was put on trial for that.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 3 months ago

"’Defense of others’ mulled in abortion case"

What's with this headline? This isn't an "abortion" case. It was cold-blooded murder, plain and simple.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.