Abortion doc murdered in Wichita

[Tango Charlie]

Anyway, the suspect arrested in association with this killing is (gasp!) a religious nutjob.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/kansas.doctor.killed.charges/index.html

 

[scott] Roeder had a history of protesting at clinics where abortion is performed, one fellow protester who knew him told CNN, and he appears to have posted a message on the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue's Web site in 2007, calling for prayers to shut down Tiller's "death camp."

[MSmith19]

I'm sorry. Work on your analytical skills. seriously. Where in f#($'s name do you draw a conclusion? No honestly. I usually make fun of people for leaps in logic but this is truly sad. I am not even being facetious at this point. SERIOUSLY. I don't even know where you got that I was religious (which btw I am not).

 

Religion is an abstract concept. From the way the discussion is flowing here it really seems like religion is being blamed for the evil.

 

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things.

 

Above is a nice and quick definition of it all. In and of itself, it is a neutral concept. Even when it is practiced, and I speak for the world's major religions here, give means to alleviate pressures when religions collide.

 

Is it hard to blame Christianity for the actions of radicals, far more prevalent than anyone had hoped for? No. The fact that Christianity develops people that murder for their religion is a testimony to its value. For you, I'll make a comparison: A Christian goes to an abortion clinic and kills a doctor performing abortions because he believes against it religiously or morally (but his morals are based on the bible). What other group besides a religious one has such occurences? Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't go out and slay those with a DUI. Heavy environmentalists don't murder businessmen who are taking advantage of the environment. Hell, since when have you heard of a Buddist murdering someone for religious reasons? Mainstream religion spawns this type of scum and as a result is has an appropriate reputation from those who aren't religious.

 

 

It is when religion becomes so strong in an individual that it evokes powerful negative feelings that "religion becomes evil". Crusades are such a common theme among discussions like these, but its hard to blame Christianity when it explicitly says "thou shall not kill". It really feels that a lot of the back-and-forth here are arguments motivated by the theoretical definition/concept or one with a few peripheries incorprated.

 

Religion can also be associated with service to humanity: mother teresa (note I am not saying that religion was the CAUSE of the motivation behind mother teresa, merely that it is associated with it).

 

 

Haha take it easy albatross, you aren't my English prof..no need to point out logical fallacies some meaningless, half-hearted statement. Seems like you have a problem.

 

Religion can be associated with a ton of good things..it doesn't mean it usually is. I think you should take a look at some holy scripture of the abrahamic religions and rethink their attitude towards eachother.

[NewfieMike]

Haha take it easy albatross,

 

 

hahahaha

 

 

[tooty]

Anyway, the suspect arrested in association with this killing is (gasp!) a religious nutjob.

 

[Guest viscous]

Haha take it easy albatross, you aren't my English prof..no need to point out logical fallacies some meaningless, half-hearted statement. Seems like you have a problem.

 

Religion can be associated with a ton of good things..it doesn't mean it usually is. I think you should take a look at some holy scripture of the abrahamic religions and rethink their attitude towards eachother.

 

Religious attitude towards each other can be associated with being bad, it does not mean it [religion] actually is bad. Just like your attitude towards religion is bad, the attitude of religion towards each other is justified in some sense.

[MSmith19]

Religious attitude towards each other can be associated with being bad, it does not mean it [religion] actually is bad. Just like your attitude towards religion is bad, the attitude of religion towards each other is justified in some sense.

 

Yeah I never said it makes religion bad, although it isn't exactly helping the religious argument. It was a response to the guy with the male enhancement drug name.

[Wolvenstar]

Isn't it horrible when people make random jumps of logic and come to bizzare conclusion Alastriss? I really do know how you feel.

 

I see this has quickly devolved into a debate over religion. Although I personally do not believe in Christianity (I do believe Christ may have existed, and truly believe the Da Vinci theories of Jesus having married and produced a sire, because it fits with the culture Jesus was a part of), I am not against the religion persay. Religions in and of themselves are just theories and beliefs, just like political methods such as communism and feudalism. In theory there is little wrong with believing it, it is in the practice of most mainstream religions that I find fault.

 

Let me clarify first what I am talking about when I say mainstream I am discussing Christianity (all of the sects of it) and islamic beliefs (all sects of muslim). These beliefs in and of themselves had the potential to have very beneficial impacts upon people and therefore the world in general. However both religious groups have been used as a tool of oppression and exclusion. Christians have always tried to press their views on others, this is no wild radical idea, nor have the stopped yet. While generally less excluding of the rest of the world many (not all, and no just because your a christian and believe otherwise, it doesn't mean everyone believes the way you do) view themselves as better because of the fact that they follow this religion and are taught that those who do not follow suffer eternal torment or do not enter some form of paradise after death. Some sects, especially many of the evalangical (sry for spelling) christians, can be very very accepting, but others including mormons are very conservative and excluding in this manner. I could go into a longer history and talk about how the bible was created by men who choose what scriptures when into it (and because it was made by man can therefore be flawed), but that would take too long.

 

The other flip of the coin is the islamic beliefs. While I am no expert of these beliefs, I need only look at those who follow the islamic way to see that they are no better in terms of tolerance than most christians (again not all muslims are horrible, and if you are a tolerant person and practice islam, good for you, your not everyone get over yourself). This can be seen in the problems many places of the middle east have with north americans and europeans. The islamic way can be very uplifting for those who follow it's teachings, but there are those that feel the teaching are not just meant for those who willingly embrace it but for everyone. This means that at times people are discriminated against for not following the traditions of the religion. This can be seen where their are clashes over the way North Americans and Europeans dress, and in the practice of pre-marital intimate relations. I remember not too long ago there was a couple (canadian I believe?) that were in dubai, I think, one of the popular tourist destinations that practice islamic beliefs who had gotten in trouble with the law. What was their crime? Public affection, and possible pre-marital sex. While I am all for respecting other's beliefs and practices, there is a certain limit to what you need to do to show respect. The fact that the police wanting to serve these tourists jail-time (initially anyways, I didn't follow the news to conclusion) was extreme.

 

 

My strongest personal belief is that for the good of humanity and people everywhere, religion of any kind, must be isolated from both government, and law. Religion in and of itself is a good and decent thing, one should have some set of beliefs about life. However, when we allow religion to gain power of authority over people, then we see the possibility of a closed-minded person/people exercising the authority the religion has to mistreat others, or get in the way of progress.

 

Look at the recent bill passed in Alberta where now it is a human right for parents have to be informed if class will be discussing religion or sex on particular days and can now pull their kids out of the class. It is one thing to have a say in what a child learns but there are two things wrong with this:

 

-There is a certain level of bigotry in not even allowing a child to learn (not convert or believe) about another religion, which aid in promoting religious tolerance. (people can generally tolerate better what they understand than what is a mystery), and sex ed is aimed at improving the child's health later in life when they deal with the issue of sex. Learning about the human body and sex does not make a child a sexual deviant.

 

-There will be children who are interested in learning in one of these subjects but now the say is entirely in the hands of the parents. Children won't be able to learn something that interests them if their parents are constantly being informed of the days it will be discussed. Yes some parents will listen to their children but not all.

 

 

Anyways I hope my little tangent hasn't offended anyone. Please remember that while you and your family/friends/community might be tolerant and one of the religions discussed, this does not mean that everyone in the religion is.

[Ian Wong]

I've been out of the loop taking both Canadian and US board exams the last few weeks. Just wanted to mention that there has been some feedback to the moderators about this thread. Clearly, this is a thread which deals with very sensitive material. I think people have overall been pretty good with it, but let's make sure that things continue to stay professional.

 

Ian

[Wolvenstar]

I've been out of the loop taking both Canadian and US board exams the last few weeks. Just wanted to mention that there has been some feedback to the moderators about this thread. Clearly, this is a thread which deals with very sensitive material. I think people have overall been pretty good with it, but let's make sure that things continue to stay professional.

 

Ian

 

 

I truly hope my critiquing of religious people, while trying to stay away from critizing the religion itself, hasn't offended anyone.

[Hopeful Med]

I am in shock about this Alberta bill. I went to a Catholic school in Ontario and not only did we take World Religions but we also had very open discussions about sex and sexual orientation. Most of us came out of the system very tolerate people.

[Tango Charlie]

I am in shock about this Alberta bill. I went to a Catholic school in Ontario and not only did we take World Religions but we also had very open discussions about sex and sexual orientation. Most of us came out of the system very tolerate people.

 

It's almost as pathetic as Californians passing prop 8 in the States. Speaking of which, we've legalized gay marriage for almost four years now. Aren't we due for that plague of homosexuality and otherwise moral decay which the religious types talk about? My father hasn't yet divorced my mother to marry a dude, but it must be just a matter of time, right?

 

But, yes, regarding bill 44 in Alberta, it's depressing how willing parents are to deny their children a well-rounded education and the greater degree of tolerance that comes from being properly educated about controversial issues. Just another reason to dislike the Conservaties, I suppose. They should see if Sarah Palin would like to start stumping for Tory candidates in Alberta next election. She and her teenage daughter who is now a single mother could tell people all about the benefits of not teaching children properly about sex, and how abstinence is the moral solution.

 

edit: Also, vaccines against the HPV viruses which cause cervical cancer will encourage young girls to have sex, so it's best if they aren't vaccinated and instead contract those forms of HPV and maybe get cervical cancer later on.

[Wolvenstar]

It's almost as pathetic as Californians passing prop 8 in the States. Speaking of which, we've legalized gay marriage for almost four years now. Aren't we due for that plague of homosexuality and otherwise moral decay which the religious types talk about? My father hasn't yet divorced my mother to marry a dude, but it must be just a matter of time, right?

 

But, yes, regarding bill 44 in Alberta, it's depressing how willing parents are to deny their children a well-rounded education and the greater degree of tolerance that comes from being properly educated about controversial issues. Just another reason to dislike the Conservaties, I suppose. They should see if Sarah Palin would like to start stumping for Tory candidates in Alberta next election. She and her teenage daughter who is now a single mother could tell people all about the benefits of not teaching children properly about sex, and how abstinence is the moral solution.

 

edit: Also, vaccines against the HPV viruses which cause cervical cancer will encourage young girls to have sex, so it's best if they aren't vaccinated and instead contract those forms of HPV and maybe get cervical cancer later on.

 

 

 

Living in Alberta but comming from the more open-minded BC I am of mixed sentiment about this bill. The fact is that generally the schools were already sending home information on uncomming days where kids would learn about sex and religion as it is part of the school mandate. So on one end this is just a redundant foolish bill. On the other side I do not believe the school mandate included informing parents if children were to be learning about different religions so that may be the big difference. Not to bash any religions, but the southern alberta area is chalk full of conservative mormon families, many of which I must described (quite sadly) as being closed minded. I hope I don't offend anyone with this, just wanted to shed some background on the area.

 

 

Although i do wonder what this has to do with the original topic.

[DylanDK]

I don't think science can solve this problem or any other.. ;-)

 

Well, at least demonstrate how it could in order to get your argument right.

 

 

 

And also, you got to tell me why transient means bad. Any development got to be over a certain period of time. Science is transient too. Just as science got better over time, philosophy can help to have a better society with less injustices and better values. If you agree that a society can change, then do you really think it would be necessary worse towards ethic ? If you take a look at our history, it doesn't confirm a downward tendancy. We definitively didn't have the same ethic as in the middle-age. In the same way of thinking, we didn't have a blooming science back then.

 

You should also know that even if it's "decided", or any other verb, it's because it's right. It's not because you can't calculate it with numbers (that were created by man by the way) that it got to be inaccurate. Obviously, killing the doc was wrong, as Ninjaface said.

 

 

Shim I think you misread my response to your post. I never said science can answer the question of whether this murder is right or wrong, I said religion and philosophy can't (conclusively anyways), because religion and philosophy changes from person to person. And yes, I totally agree science can be transient (which is why I said 'that's what it's supposed to do, anyways') but the idea is that it's generally objective rather than subjective, and that's where it's power comes from. But really, the point of my previous post was that we don't need to look to religion to give us guidance for questions like this, because one religion will say it's okay, another will say it's not. Of course I don't think it's okay, but if I was born in 200 AD I would probably see no problem with the murdering of an abortionist (and in your defence, 50 years ago I wouldn't see an issue with a mental patient receiving a prefrontal lobotomy). I just can't see why other people see religion as having more meaning or insight than it does.

[DylanDK]

I'd have to disagree with this. I can use logic to reason out why it is never right to take the life of another human being, no matter what the cultural or temporal context. Kant did too. You can have moral absolutes without religion. I do anyways...

 

I can answer you right now in fact - it was wrong to kill the doctor.

 

Trust me.

 

Now I'm inclined not to argue with you because I see you've been accepted into med school, congrats, however, I can't agree with you. I can use logic to prove god exists, and also that no god exists. I think 'logic' makes too many assumptions without evidence. I'm sure there has been rebuttles to Kant's arguements that are agreeable with some philosophers but not others (pointing to the fact it's a matter of opinion?). And, I agree you don't need religion to have morality, that's pretty much what I was arguing in the first place, but I don't think deductive philosophy can PERFECTLY do the trick either. I totally agree that the doctor shouldn't have been killed, mainly because he was killed for going against some words someone wrote long ago that don't have any kind of evidence to back them up. I guess I think the doctor wasn't in the wrong because fetuses don't have a sense of self or feel pain, and their death doesn't cause someone else pain (except for those individuals who claim to feel pain out of religious conviction)

[Wolvenstar]

I guess I think the doctor wasn't in the wrong because fetuses don't have a sense of self or feel pain, and their death doesn't cause someone else pain (except for those individuals who claim to feel pain out of religious conviction)

 

Regardless of anyone's views on abortion, Legally he is entitled to perform abortions and therefore he is an innocent by default. In the end it doesn't matter what your religion, your neighbor, or your parents say. The Law decides what is legal and what isn't. The law is above religion, the government is above religion, religion must submit to the laws of the country involved. Perhaps in some places around the world it would be considered acceptable(legally) to kill the doctor for performing abortions, but not in north america.

 

I don't think we need to go deeper into debating religion that how it affects the event otherwise we are going to end up offending a bunch of people.

[WestEastMountGuy]

Regardless of anyone's views on abortion, Legally he is entitled to perform abortions and therefore he is an innocent by default. In the end it doesn't matter what your religion, your neighbor, or your parents say. The Law decides what is legal and what isn't. The law is above religion, the government is above religion, religion must submit to the laws of the country involved. Perhaps in some places around the world it would be considered acceptable(legally) to kill the doctor for performing abortions, but not in north america.

 

I don't think we need to go deeper into debating religion that how it affects the event otherwise we are going to end up offending a bunch of people.

 

But what if a law is immoral? Not arguing about this particular case, but in general, is an immoral law a law that should be followed?

[tooty]

But what if a law is immoral? Not arguing about this particular case, but in general, is an immoral law a law that should be followed?

 

you need to define how to determine morality first.

 

if a law is immoral according to religious nutjobs and, yet, is moral to the majority of the population, then it should still stand.

[DylanDK]

Regardless of anyone's views on abortion, Legally he is entitled to perform abortions and therefore he is an innocent by default. In the end it doesn't matter what your religion, your neighbor, or your parents say. The Law decides what is legal and what isn't. The law is above religion, the government is above religion, religion must submit to the laws of the country involved. Perhaps in some places around the world it would be considered acceptable(legally) to kill the doctor for performing abortions, but not in north america.

 

I don't think we need to go deeper into debating religion that how it affects the event otherwise we are going to end up offending a bunch of people.

 

Good point

[WestEastMountGuy]

you need to define how to determine morality first.

 

if a law is immoral according to religious nutjobs and, yet, is moral to the majority of the population, then it should still stand.

 

Ah but who decides who a religious nutjob is? It's all very very subjective if you ask me. Not as much in this case, but there are probably many more cases in which we have to ask ourselves : "Is this law just?"

[tooty]

Ah but who decides who a religious nutjob is? It's all very very subjective if you ask me. Not as much in this case, but there are probably many more cases in which we have to ask ourselves : "Is this law just?"

 

imo

 

religious nutjob:

-noun

 

1. anyone who references god or the bible in an argument concerning principles of right and wrong.

[AdamP]

Now I'm inclined not to argue with you because I see you've been accepted into med school

 

Bahahaha,

 

Play him off, keyboard cat.

 

[WestEastMountGuy]

imo

 

religious nutjob:

-noun

 

1. anyone who references god or the bible in an argument concerning principles of right and wrong.

 

Interesting Definition. I wonder how many of our current law makers were influenced by religious beliefs.

[AdamP]

Interesting Definition. I wonder how many of our current law makers were influenced by religious beliefs.

 

This guy was. Luckly not our lawmaker.

 

[WestEastMountGuy]

This guy was. Luckly not our lawmaker.

 

 

You know I think I know what the problem is. Most of the moderate Christians aren't willing to declare that they are Christian cause 90% of non-Christians assume that we're all like that.

[future_doc]

.....fetuses don't have a sense of self or feel pain...

 

(10 characters)