[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

Weren't Nazi death camps legal under Nazi Germany?

A better question is "does it matter?". The government was allowing them. The courts were certainly not intervening. The were, for all intents and purposes, legal.

(in no way am I siding with or condoning the actions of the murderer of this doctor)

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

Weren't Nazi death camps legal under Nazi Germany?

No, they weren't, actually. The post-Nuremburg, German tribunals tried war crimes under the Weimar Constitution and laws. But it's somewhat neither here nor there, because they weren't actually in Nazi Germany, either. Most of them were in occupied Poland and thus fell under the jurisdiciton of Polish or international law. Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno (the Aktion Reinhard camps) were all in Poland. Mauthausen is the only one I'm aware of that had a gas chamber for industrial execution in Germany proper... But even then, Mauthausen was in Austria, which was annexed into Germany before the war. Itself, arguably, an illegal act.

[Wolvrin704]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

No, they weren't, actually. The post-Nuremburg, German tribunals tried war crimes under the Weimar Constitution and laws. But it's somewhat neither here nor there, because they weren't actually in Nazi Germany, either. Most of them were in occupied Poland and thus fell under the jurisdiciton of Polish or international law. Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno (the Aktion Reinhard camps) were all in Poland. Mauthausen is the only one I'm aware of that had a gas chamber for industrial execution in Germany proper... But even then, Mauthausen was in Austria, which was annexed into Germany before the war. Itself, arguably, an illegal act.

I'm unsure of legality under Nazism as a comparison thats why I ask.

As for being in other coutries thats actually irrelevant as they were part of German territory by right of conquest. Not defending either issue just trying to find a comparison. Maybe death/labor camps of communist Russia or China would be a better comparison?

My take is that the murder of the dr is wrong, but so is what the dr did for a living especially considering some of the charges that have been leveled at him concerning late term abortions. In that case what he did may very well be illegal. But one of the most troubling things to me is that he was a deacon in a church.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

My take is that the murder of the dr is wrong, but so is what the dr did for a living

It's the equivocation that bothers me. If you really are pro-life, then there shouldn't be any "but" anywhere in the statement. Its wrong to kill people. Just say that without the "but," because that suggests that there's actually a question about the morality of killing Dr. Tiller.

especially considering some of the charges that have been leveled at him concerning late term abortions. In that case what he did may very well be illegal.

Nope. Late Term Abortions are legal in Kansas. He was acquitted of 19 misdemeanor offenses related to his practice in... 1993, I think.

But one of the most troubling things to me is that he was a deacon in a church.

He wasn't a deacon; he was an usher.

[TunerSteve]

Nope. Late Term Abortions are legal in Kansas. He was acquitted of 19 misdemeanor offenses related to his practice in... 1993, I think

His most recent court skirmish was over procedures used to determine if these late term abortions were necessary to save the mothers life. Kansas law requires a medical second opinion, totally unrelated professoinally from the clinic's practice. Dr. Tiller was using a staff member of his clinic to render these second opinions. They claimed clearical error, and misunderstanding. This has been a highly political issue here in Kansas. The state's attorney general(s), have batted around this issue each election year. One wanted records released for abortions performed on girls under the age of sexual consent, as this would obviously indicate a crime was commited against these girls. The other side claimed dr/patient confidentiality. The court case on second opinions had pro-abortionists claiming (perhaps rightly so) that the attorney general was only pursuing the case because of his personal feelings regarding abortion. But the fact of the matter is, laws were being broken/skirted and those laws are there for a reason.

I pray for all concerned in this case.

[slap_j]

Scott Roeder convicted of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller - latimes.com

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Make no mistake, murdering George Tiller is an act of terrorism. It follows explicitly the pattern established by Michael Collins. It is there to stop Dr. Tiller and other abortion providers from doing what they do. Those of you who objected to the DHS report on far right extremism... What do you make of it now?

Can you believe they actually tried a terrorist in a regular American court?!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Quite. If your neighbor was running an execution camp in their backyard, the law was doing nothing about it, and you had a rifle and an opportunity, what would you do?

Hard to say.

I think this is the reason we're reminded, as Christians, that "vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord." Abortionists are serial killers, but it is not ours to avenge.

If it had been Osama Bin Laden that got offed in this way, would as many of you here be appalled? Somehow, I really doubt it. What's the material difference, though?

If abortion is murder (as most Christians will still claim, despite the trendy outliers), then we need to be consistent. Either don't rejoice in the death of the wicked, or do.

Amen.

[nolidad]

O

riginally Posted by Nate
Quite. If your neighbor was running an execution camp in their backyard, the law was doing nothing about it, and you had a rifle and an opportunity, what would you do?

Hard to say.

I think this is the reason we're reminded, as Christians, that "vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord." Abortionists are serial killers, but it is not ours to avenge.

If it had been Osama Bin Laden that got offed in this way, would as many of you here be appalled? Somehow, I really doubt it. What's the material difference, though?

If abortion is murder (as most Christians will still claim, despite the trendy outliers), then we need to be consistent. Either don't rejoice in the death of the wicked, or do.

Amen.

I understand why this guy did what he did- but he still committed murder, got caught and i snow going to have to pay for his crime. In this country- being a mass murderer is legal as long as the people you are killing haven't had a chance to breathe on their own yet.

[Big_al]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Nate, I think the Christian response to your hypothetical is pretty clear, based on the example of Christ at the Cross. You simply get between the person and the victim, and force them to kill you before they commit any other immoral act. Not for the potential victim, but to force the victimizer to repent and put a stop to it. That's the only real Christian response.

I don't rejoice in death of anyone, wicked or otherwise. I don't think anyone can legitimately say that following Jesus means rejoicing in death. Rejoice in the death of death, but rejoicing in death is just... Satanic.

Disclaimer: The filter on this public computer won't let me see the second page

This has been going through my head every since this happened, if abortion is murder, how is voting to have it illegalized enough? If you are physically able to stop a murder and you don't isn't that wrong?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Big_al

This has been going through my head every since this happened, if abortion is murder, how is voting to have it illegalized enough?

It's inadequate. What ideally should be done is to undermine the causes many people cite in an abortion by adopting the child or financially supporting the mother or something along these lines. Obviously that takes effort that is many orders of magnitude greater than voting, than protesting, than talking on the internet about it, etc.

If you are physically able to stop a murder and you don't isn't that wrong?

That could entail a great many things. One has to keep in mind that a good end does not justify evil means.