Totally agreed here. It is not the ok, right or moral thing to do, but purely necessity. If it's the only option and killing the offender is the only way to prevent further harm, then so be it. At least though it's not like this as it is in some countries: A guy runs at you with a machete. You shoot him and kill him. You are then trialed and found guilty and serve jail time for using 'over excessive force' in self defense. Now that's complete bullshit.
I'm a Libertarian, I believe it's not 'ok' to kill however I think it is justifable if you are defending your democracy, freedom and other peoples rights to being individuals.
I also agree in cases of defence of your property and preventing of others dying. BUT I think there needs to be some rules to prevent a power abuse and death should only be considered as a last action, for example if a man is going to kill a human.
What if a pro-life person, knowing exactly what was about to take place, happened to be in the abortion room just before it was going to happen, and the only way to stop it from happening was by lethal force...how is that different from the old lady/atm scenario?
@jimpharris1 Very good point, one to be considered! But I personally think that is unjustifiable as the debate to when life starts... well it's exactly that a debate, no one is more right than the other.
However when it is a actually human life form, then by all means...
Also abortion wouldn't be an illegal act, as opposed to endangering human life/murder/serious grevious bodily harm, so that is how it would differ I suppose.
What if a pro-life person, knowing exactly what was about to be done, happened to be in the abortion room just before it was going to take place..and the only way to stop it from happening was lethal force...how different is that scenario from the old lady/atm scenario?
@crashkadara Well he may get up and kill you and the victim. I'm not saying it's ok or good, but like Shane argues I think it's justifiable if you are defending innocent life/democracy,
@ForeverComplaining Sorry If my answer is a little shaky on this one, It's been a year.
Anyway, I personally don't think it's okay to kill anyone. Ever. Regardless of what their doing/have the potential to do. How is killing one person (in this case the robber) any better than allowing them to kill another? I simply can't justify it. Honestly I don't know what I would do in this situation, all I know is that I could not possibly take another human beings life.
@crashkadara Exactly, I wouldn't be able to kill either, however If I saw innocent life in danger, I would try and stop it, but I wouldn't intentionally kill, however it may lead to that and I think if it does lead to that, but you were defending life then I think it is justifiable and you shouldn't be punished for it.
@ForeverComplaining Understand that, if it came to that, even if the assailant were armed with nothing more than a knife and were a good 20+ feet away, the time you would have to make a decision before the person was kill would be less than 2 seconds. Probably closer to 1.
@shanedk "That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two)."
Today's lesson: Do not listen to a bumbling moron on the interned shrieking "Those damn americans and their over-inflated military budget!!" ever again
@GohanLSSJ2 well that's not entirely true. if you look at a site which breaks down govenrment spending (usgovernmentspendingDOTcom is fairly accurate and has a very detailed breakdown of spending) healthcare is 6.5% of GDP, pensions are 5.5%, education is 6% and military is about 5.0%. military IS less but compare this to other countries. the EU average is only 1.6%, germany, japan and switzerland are 0.8%, and switzerland stil has conscription.
@Fernoe Of course if you're going to compare to other countries, many countries education is budget is more like 3%, healthcare is 1% in singapore, 2% in hong kong and 2.9% in switzerland and some coutnries don't even have a state pension. the government could EASILY cut their entire budget in half.
What makes your analogy so poor is that very few abortionists will kill an infant in the womb that would easily survive induced labor delivery as Tiller did. You aren't being honest when you say women will go somewhere else for that. Killing him actually did prevent some women in the US from doing this to their fully developed unborn. I think you're either delusional or just a douchebag without credibility for skewing the fact that Tiller killed babies capable of surviving outside of the womb.
@shanedk You don't have to be an ob-gyn or examine every case personally to know what the survivability rate is of the children he was "aborting" rather than just delivering. Thanks for the additional strawman though.
@shanedk The comment is right there, read it again. I never made any such claim. I said very few would do something like that, Tiller was one of them. I never said anything along the lines of me knowing knowing "EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM" would have survived. But hey, like that changes the reality of both of us knowing that many of them could have survived. Oh I could tell you why the ocean meets the shore. I'd think of things I never thought before and then I'd sit,.. and think some more.
@Vlaxitov Actually, no. Murdering a doctor doesn't stop women from wanting and needing abortions. If a woman really wants one and the doctor is killed, she can go somewhere else or do it herself some other way, or maybe even kill the baby right after it's born. How is that better? And by logic like yours, roeders and paul hills, would it be okay to gun down women who've had abortions too?
@Vlaxitov This point is retarded because first off, how can you even obtain the fact that the murder prevented some women from getting abortions? These abortions were legal in he state as long as it was determined by to other doctors the birth would cause extreme complications. Do you even know why he performed these abortions? He performed them for women who would be killed or have extreme complications due to the pregnancy. These were not random women who wanted a late term abortion.
@Vlaxitov as for women going somewhere else for an abortion, Women in El Salvador brave prosecution (sentenced for murder) and death just to illegally obtain their abortions. The fact is if the women wants an abortion she's going to get it legal or not. Anti-abortion laws are retarded because they are not a deterrent and they cause more problems than they solve. I don't think killing this doctor accomplished much of anything except maybe showing how religion can fuel some nasty shit.
@nameofmeAJ Sarah Yates would have drowned her kids no matter what so lets open up clinics full of bathtubs for women to drown their children in safely. You're right, religion can fuel some stupid and nasty shit. Anti religion fuels just as much stupid and nasty shit.
@Vlaxitov Drowning your children is not the same as an abortion. The child is not inside of you. It is not a part of you. It is a major difference. I can think of many more reasons people did something horrible because of religion than because they were against religion.
@nameofmeAJ Of course you can think of many more religious attrocities than non religious attrocities. That must be because you're not anti religious with bias. Tell me something else I don't know. The Sarah Yates comparison isn't spot on? That isn't why you would get charged for murder or manslaughter if you deliberately kicked an expecting mothers stomach in an attempt to kill that little non human inside? Yep, a human when we want it to be, holocaust jew status when we don't right?
@Vlaxitov well I mean can you name any non religious atrocities? That is, not someone who did something wrong and they weren't religious, but someone who did something wrong for the sole purpose of being against religion. Nothing really comes to mind here. There may be a few but i mean nothing can compare to the horrible things religion has fueled. I really do think it is ridiculous to compare the two. Even throughout recent history there's been many including Darfur.
@nameofmeAJ You're right, drowning your children isn't the same. Children you drown at least get to enjoy their existance in the outside world for a little while. The premise however is the same and we might as well provide clinics for women like Sarah Yates so that they can drown their kids safely and without consequence. Then we need to redefine drowning our kids to being something other than the killing of a human. Then promote it as being a responsible act because nobody wants them anyway.
@Vlaxitov As for abortion, there is just no point in making it illegal. First off whether you want to hear it or not the fact of the matter is the right to abortion is directly linked to women's rights. Taking away a women's right to choose and forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then leads to inequality between men and women. The truth of the matter is pregnancy is a hindrance to women only and not men. Once the right to abort a fetus is taken away women are second class citizens.
@shanedk theres just too much riding against pro-life. Being pro-lifr is just a selfish view anyway. If you don't like abortion don't have one, but please stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.
@nameofmeAJ The fact that it's 'inside' someone is not because they are 'part' of that body. That's like saying any parasyte inside of you is part of your body (Bad analogy, I'll admit it... but I think it works.). The baby is dependant on your body, true, but it's not part of it.
And before you ask. No. I'm not a religious. I'm actually a Deist.
@GohanLSSJ2 But it does mean that, for all practical purposes, it is as though it were a part of the woman's body. So while you could make the argument that there's no moral difference, you cannot make the argument that there isn't a huge practical difference staring us in the face, and that any attempt to enforce the moral choice will be fraught with the same peril as telling people they can't drink alcohol.
@shanedk "you cannot make the argument that there isn't a huge practical difference staring us in the face" Won't deny that. But I want to say that Killing isn't always the answer (Unless there's lifes in inmediate danger). There are more solutions that just rip the poor thing to pieces, there's adoption...
@GohanLSSJ2 you said abortion is not the key to gender equality. When men and women have sex, if abortion is illegal, there is a huge difference between potential risk between men and women. Men can just leave, while women are stuck with a fetus for 9 months. There are no pro-life countries where men and women have equal rights.
@nameofmeAJ "Men can just leave" That's running away Shinji-style, abortions are just the same, you run away from responsabilities, that would be equallity, but that would make them both cowards. Personally, I'm willing to accept responsability for the baby. And by the way, a lot of (if not all) pro-abortion countries also have gender inequality.
@GohanLSSJ2 There is so much information you can easily find on Gender Equality and Abortion. There are whole college level courses dedicated to the issue. If you just look maybe you will understand it. Just because YOU wouldn't leave a pregnant women doesn't mean everyone also wouldn't. Whether you like it or not gender equality is directly effected by the countries stance on abortion. There is a huge difference in the level of gender inequality between Pro-choice and Pro-life nations.
@johnrainrules They are the ones who must chose not to, only a coward would abandon a child (or fetus in this case) to die... If a woman gets pregant due to casual sex without protection, she must take responsibility for her recklessness, same thing goes for the man.
@johnrainrules Isn't that what abortion entails? You can choose if you want to be a mother or not, so you're free to kill your unborn brethen and deny them the chance to live... I just can't process the fact that that could be seen as good... wouldn't drowning your baby or throwing them to die on the streets be the same thing? I mean, if the woman is free to choose, she can choose that she doesn't want to be a mother anymore as well. Just sayin'
@shanedk You want to know how? After analysing a lot of pro-choice essays and comments, I came to that conclussion, you guys think that abortion must be a way of mercy-killing, due to, if the babies are born, they won't enjoy the same benefits as if they're wanted children.
That said, I guess you ARE right, adoption system has its problems... reforming it is (or at least should be) a priority.
@GohanLSSJ2 Reform the adoption system and more people will opt for it rather than aborting. Get the government down to its constitutional functions and can eliminate the Income Tax and replace it with nothing (and no deficits); this will result in people being able to keep even more of their money and make it easier for them to afford children, causing fewer abortions. It will also let parents, who no longer have to work as much, be involved in their kids' lives, reducing it even further.
@vspqbd I can't blame Shane for that position though, considering most of USA's taxes go to... well, the military budget (Or so I've heard); instead of health care, education, adoption centres or other useful stuff.
@GohanLSSJ2 That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two).
@shanedk "That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two)."
Today's lesson: Do not listen to a bumbling moron on the interned shrieking "Those damn americans and their over-inflated military budget!!" ever again...
@GohanLSSJ2 I don't believe so, I think it puts more money in our pockets, money which we'll invest in banks to buy houses or say use to spend money and stimulate the economy.
See I believe that state owned things, whilst I'm sure they mean good (I see them as opressive though), they seem to consume your wealth and give little back.
@Vlaxitov Just look at every country where abortions are illegal. They are all controlled strictly by men and it is seen as taboo for a women to do anything but be a stay at home mother taking care of their children. This is all besides the fact that it would be illogical to even make abortion illegal because 1. Women will find more dangerous ways to have an abortion, potentially harming themselves and 2. what would even be the punishment for having one? This would only effect women. Inequality.
Spare us your morally relativistic utilitarianism, 'It is not OK or right, but necessary' bullshit. It is not necessary at all. You can just let a criminal kill innocent people if you want, you'd risk being killed yourself after all. It IS both OK and the right thing to do'. Furthermore, it is moral and virtuous, having risked your own life to destroy a criminal who was about to commit a violent crime. Initiating force is evil, retaliating against it is moral.
@tothemax01 "You can just let a criminal kill innocent people if you want, you'd risk being killed yourself after all."
I NEVER said that. Stop LYING.
You can argue that it is immoral (or at least a weakness) to NOT take the necessary step of killing the criminal, but the MOMENT you argue it is right or moral to do so, you're on your way to flying planes into buildings.
@shanedk No, I said it, you can just let the criminal kill the woman to save harm to yourself, I don't see room for the concept of 'necessity'. The woman killing the criminal, yes, you could argue that is also necessary. And no, an action is either moral or it is not, and hence, since you pose a binary situation (kill or no kill), and you say no-kill is immoral, the kill in this case would be moral. And RE plane & buildings, no, that is usually an initiation of force, not a retaliation.
@shanedk The people in the buildings were not US troops. We are talking about the morality of the actions of individuals. Talking about the actions of nations is separate (and much more complicated) issue.
@tothemax01 You're going by YOUR morality, NOT theirs. According to THEIR morality, what they did was right.
Don't you get the difference? "Right" means whatever you can justify with whatever code or book or whatever that you want to use. "Necessity" is an objective evaluation: They say it was right, you say it was wrong. But was it NECESSARY? No, clearly not.
Here is a scenario and question which may not be more than wording nitpicking. You emphasize that it is not "Okay", but "Necessary" to kill in some situations.
What about those situations where the benefit is far greater than a loss, in humanitarian terms? For example, I have seen people who claim that, if they could, they would cause extinction of all life on the planet. If they were about to so so, would it not only be necessary, but moral, to kill them (and save billions, plus nonhumans)?
You know I was thinking taxes being immoral. No matter how much or how little the government steal from us through taxes it is still wrong. But like in your video the issue isn't always is moral but is it necessary. The answer to that question is probably yes but not in a huge amount. We still need to finance a state. We don't need to finance a huge state.
I love your videos and I am appreciative of the logic, though (because of my moral beliefs) I do not support abortion, I see your point and share in this belief/commonsense.Keep em coming your videos are delightful.
so for you killing a human being is not killing a human being, a pure creationist point of view of delusion. First what you are talking about in the end is a moral jugement. If you have a minimal education you know that moral judgement doesn't mean a answer is good or bad (that is something you have problem with,pretty sure) and that the way you answer the question you ask just show you have the moral judgement of a child. By no mean I want to be mean with you...
well he might not of stopped those women from getting abortions but he might of stop certain ones from having late term abortions, from what i understand there is only a handful of doctors performing later term abortions in that state. its just something to think about, oh and since when is it the woman's body??? is the dna exact?? i dont think so
Your morals are skewed. Our value on life has always been based on the self-awareness that the life possesses. A foetus does not have self-awareness. At worst you're killing a person that has yet to become aware of their own existance yet, at best you're killing a clump of cells that has yet to become a life.
Do I like the idea of abortion? Hell no, if possible I hope that no one would resort to such a thing. But that doesnt give you the right to bring up stupid "baby murder" jibes.
Excellent explanation of the Necessity Defense! And if you were correct that women "would just go somewhere else", you would be correct that it doesn't apply in Roeder's case. But only two late termers remain, who are less skilled and "a bit wonky" according to the Feb GQ magazine. Even when doors were merely blocked a few hours, many mothers never rescheduled their murders. So the only real contested issue is: are babies human? I would welcome this as a response to Roeder's post trial statement
I missed some good conjecture on this subject, I did notice the conversation had moved to how beneficial making things Illegal was, And I find a point of agreement here, I believe that making alcohol Illegal is dumb it just doesn't work, as well as drugs and prostitution and Abortion. This is not the way to deal with these problems, So while I am 100% against abortion I am 100% against making it Illegal, Just like Sarah Palin :)
Strange as it may seem I think we prob, would agree on 99% Of everything, I am a conservative, I do not ever wish to tell you how to live you're life, But I will not tolerate someone telling me how to live my life.
you know what else is immoral? creating laws that force people to hide from legal protection, which leaves defenseless if they are the victim of crime. prostitutes and drug addicts get exploited a lot more in countries where drugs and prostitution are illegal.
You have decreed the violent imposition of your will upon others to be a good thing, something to aspire to. We will oppose you at ever turn on this issue the same way we would oppose a white supremacist who wished to re-institute slavery.
You LIED OUTRIGHT when you said prostitutes in Nevada cannot quit. THAT IS A LIE. Don't deny you said it, and don't try to keep claiming it's true when it isn't.
Also, I never said that it should be legal to coerce women into prostitution by force. YOU attributed that position to me. You are either ignorant, or you're a liar trying to score cheap points.
I actually agree that prostitution is immoral. That said, if it's voluntary, I don't think that it should be a "crime" in the same way that I don't think that other behaviors that are detrimental to oneself (but not others), should be crime. Banning a certain behavior for the "good" of the person practicing that behavior ALWAYS leads to far worse evils.
My point was that pimps exist because prostitution is illegal, and therefore the prostitutes cannot go to the cops if pimps exploit them, similar to how criminals were able to gain control of liquor operations by literally killing the competition because they couldn't go to the authorities BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL, and that in both cases the problem would be solved in large part by not making it illegal. Are you dense?
Reminds me of that jackass on the LeagueofReason forums who kept saying that because you (Shane) are against prohibition, that you are against laws that forbid murder, theft, etc.
Yep. It's a common thing: the statists just don't get the difference between prohibition and common law, or how statutory laws were only supposed to be codifications of common law.
You deliberately cheapened the plight of the black slaves just to score some cheap points in a political discussion. That's RACIST. You're a VILE and DISGUSTING person. And I don't CARE if other people do it--THEY'RE vile and disgusting, too!
YES, conditions improve with legalization! Just ask the prostitutes in Nevada, where it IS legal!
Boy, it's just one pathetic excuse after another, isn't it? And all so you can ignore the point: that the problems you're talking about ONLY HAPPEN WITH PROHIBITION.
"Prostitution does not fall under 'my body, my choice' in the real world. Perhaps you've heard of people called 'pimps'."
That's a retarded example. It's like someone saying during the Prohibition era that that Prohibition should be kept in place because men like Al Capone ran liquor operations. Pimps exist because prostitutes can't go to the police if the pimp is extorting money from her. You're being extremely inconsistent in your logic.
Pimps are around BECAUSE it's illegal. It's like prohibition and the mob selling alcohol. There was lots of violance involved with alcohol sales then but not now... BECAUSE it is legal and can be done within the law where shop owners can go to the police if violence occurs. If prostitution was legal they could get pimps arrested and would operate out of legitimate stores and not in the street.
Watch Penn &Tellers "bullshit" episodes about this they did a good job debunking it.
In this scenario I'd use the minimum amount of force needed to stop the assailant. People are fragile though... I can't guarantee the assailant would not die from shock if I was to say grab him by the arm too hard.
In my opinion a fetus is just a wad of tissue until it starts developing a personality. The tissue itself has no value. To kill a personality for disposing of unwanted tissue is wrong.
Coz someone could turn around and say, "the woman shouldn't have driven while drunk coz the horny rapist would have just found another victim." Remember, Dr. Tiller was one of the few who'd perform late-term abortions and so Roeder may have indeed stopped the abortions.
Except the woman could have either gone to another (you yourself said one of few, not the only one), and even if he was, she could have gone to a back-alley abortionist, or even used a rusty coat hanger.
@shanedk, I liked your video, However I can also see where at least one baby wasn't aborted as a direct result of Roeders actions most likely many more lived due to this. So did he not save a innocent life? I do not support killing abortionists but I also do not think Roeder committed a crime. Scary thought isn't it? May be that killing baby's is just a dangerous occupation?
--physicians performing LEGAL medical procedures in the USA are not charged with murder
--women choosing abortion in the USA are not charged with murder
--COLD-BLOOD, PREMEDITATED MURDER IS ILLEGAL IN THE USA
i hope scott roeder lives another 40+ years and rots to death in prison. and after that, if i thought there were a "hell," i'd hope that scott roeder burned in hell for all of eternity.
Ya just like the Nazi's thought it was legal to kill Jews, Didn't work out for them at Nuremberg, 60000 dead @ Tillers hands 1 mass murderer dead @ Roeders hands.
If you cared to know the facts before you spout your ignorance, You would know that Tiller financed corrupt gov, officials to save himself from prosecution on a myriad of crimes he committed against tens of thousands, as well as victims as young as 9yrs old. You really should research whom you choose for a poster Boy.
Here is where it all really is, I am convinced that abortion for convenience is Murder. you dont and are unwilling to consider that at the moment of conception the a living being exists, therefor there is no murder rather just a lump of cells, Well I think all Roeder did was rearrange the lump of cells sitting on the Teflon killer, Doc, Tillers shoulders :)
I do want to say once again I do not support killing abortionists. except that killing baby's is just a dangerous occupation.
I just want to know why that argument doesn't apply to drugs and prostitution. And you CAN'T say because they're illegal--that's CIRCULAR REASONING! Can you JUSTIFY them being illegal, since it IS your body?
This is what SICKENS me about hypocritical liberals...it's your body, until it's THEIR form of tyranny we're talking about!
my argument does not apply to illegal drugs and prostitution because they are illegal. fortunately, women don't have to risk their lives getting back-alley abortions because ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA.
my point was re ABORTION. as in>> my uterus, my body, MY CHOICE.
it was YOU who brought illegal drugs and prostitution into this debate, which of course has no relevance in the abortion debate.
MURDER does have relevance, since anti-choicers claim abortion is murder.. WRONG.
My body, my choice, why cant I use whatever substance want for recreation? Or sell myself? I have no disagreement with abortion, but are you that thick? How can you not see the connection between self-ownership of one's body and the use of drugs or prostitution?
Apply the same logic you use for abortions to drugs and prostitution. My body, my choice.
"It's illegal" is not justification for prohibition nor is "it's legal" a justification for abortion-it's justified bc you own your body.
The question isn't what is legal or illegal, it's WHY is it legal or illegal.
What is the justification for it being illegal?
Where is the social harm from these activities?
In the case of drugs and prostitution, they don't cause any direct harm to others or society, just like abortions, and they fall under 'it's your body' category.
So why is it the drugs and prostitution illegal while abortion is not?
@glukolover says "In the case of drugs and prostitution, they don't cause any direct harm to others or society"
the junkie that can't work or care for their family, or who robs people or businesses to score their next fix, or who drive while wasted and severely injure or kill innocent people?
prostitution, what about STDs? what about physical, mental and emotional abuse of the hookers? what about stealing from the johns?
taxpayer burden because of prosecution of the above?
Again, these things happen BECAUSE they're illegal. Did you know that in 1913 even an 8-year-old kid could go into a drugstore and buy heroin or cocaine?
So pre-crime is your justification? You might do something bad with drug X, so you can't have it? Abusus non tollit usum. Why not ban alcohol by the same reasoning?
I would never encourage anyone to go into prostitution, but who do you think are healthy, street walkers in LA, or in the brothels around Las Vegas? Or escorts? Or independent women operating online through things like craigslist?
Seriously? Court costs? The amount of money spent prosecuting hookers and drug users is absurd.
And what's to stop a "junkie" from doing any of your examples now? Nothing. All the billions spent in the drug war he will have no problem getting heroin or crack, not even in prison. Studies asking people if they would try hard drugs if they were legal show that less than 1% of the population would, so there will be no boom in users, but they will no longer be ostracized by the law for using drugs. Take the heroin maintenance program in Switzerland that dramatically reduced crime by addicts.
How many hookers would steal from their clients if they were operating legally and had a reputation for it? How many prostitutes steal to make more money because their pimp(who has a local monopoly on prostitution bc of it's prohibition by law enforcement) takes most of their pay? Making prostitution illegal has not reduced it in the slightest, has lead to abusive pimps,terrible working conditions and more STDs. Brothels/girls that want to keep themselves clean will require condoms or testing.
It always comes down to that, doesn't it? The ONLY reason we'd be in favor is because we want to do it ourselves? It COULDN'T be because we don't want the increased crime, increased taxes, increased poverty, increased police corruption, and everything else that goes along with insane prohibitionist policies, could it?
No, I don't want my kids to do those things any more than I want them to smoke or drink alcohol. But we want those things to stay legal, right?
no, what is "asinine" is your inability to comprehend the logic against your argument or perhaps you do understand, but you are incapable of rebuking it. Legality is not the question, the ethical stance; the justification for such matter is. Do you think killing a raped woman for the "honor" of the family is justified if youre under sharia law? You see, your "legality argument" is baseless to begin with and its fallacious in itself. You are the one advancing stupid arguments.
YOU are the one who said, "my body, my choice." I'm asking why it ONLY applies to this issue, and not other consensual behaviors which harm no one but which a tyrannical state has deemed illegal?
@thatbritts please learn more about abortions before going into a chat room and stating that such and such a person is a murder because he killed cells it doesn't do anything for you other then prove that your a moron
now answer this question
which is worse killing a stilborn/ deformed/ cancer celled embreo (baby) or murding a person already past the formation in the womb.
He "saved" a fetus by killing a person-- that's not exactly an even trade-off. Scott Roeder committed first degree murder, and thankfully-- he was convicted of this.
He's a bastard, and I honestly hope that, should these freaks try and murder more doctors, they get what for.
Who cares if the same women going to kill there kid at tillers chop shop will eventually find another abortionist or not! At least the murderer tiller was stopped and if one women doesn't get an abortion because tiller was offed then it was worth it. This video is like saying why lock up drug dealers, drug addicts will just find another drug dealer to get their fix from. This guys logic is as flawed as his humor.
By that "logic" you could kill the pope because he's condems condom use in africa which undoubtedly kills thousands of people so if killing him means few people die then it's ok?
Your "logic" (add eye roll) is dangerous since it could be used to rationalize the murder of LOTS of people.
no because if you killed the Pope, another like minded person would take his place. It's the religion that would have to be stopped. In order to that you would have to kill everyone the believes. Most of those are innocent people just following what they see as a law.
The only problem in your theory is that you have to prove you were in danger of a greater crime....in a court of law. So it is not just an easy excuse. Ever have to pay for a lawyer? It is not cheap.
No. It doesn't. In order to for his logic to be used you must do 2 things. 1) You must prove that you killing him is less of a crime then what he is doing, and 2) you must prove that killing him will resolve the problem. You can't just kill anyone for anything. There are strict rules to this.
In Shane's example you have a Killer trying to kill an innocent old lady. Most would it's the lesser crime to kill the Killer then to kill the innocent. Once the Killer is dead, the old lady is safe. So both 1 and 2 are meet. If there were 2 Killers and you only killed 1 the let the other kill the old lady, then you haven't stopped the crime and the murder isn't justified.
o ok. When i first commented to you youtube had your comment standing alone, so it looked like you were talking about Shane's logic. But now it is showing as your comment was a replie to yabruf.
No thats incorrect. If thousands of people die in Africa thats their choice and has no connection to the Pope. You act if the Pope takes away free will and is some kind of assumed authority figure. So since your example would only be valid if there was no such thing as free will you fail in that regard. Your understanding of logical thought (add three stooges eye poke to stop eye roll) is dangerous since you could influence others (namely small children) into thinking you were correct.
Yes, THE POPE IS DOING IT!!! If you lie to someone, you commit FRAUD, and it IS a form of force! It DOES subjugate their free will!
Unless you don't think fraud should be against the law? Should someone just be able to lie to you and con you and rip you off without repercussions?
I have EVIDENCE. THAT is the difference between you and me. Don't you DARE call ME misleading when I have evidence, and when YOU just defended FRAUD THAT KILLS.
What about a baby, how self aware is it? when did you become self aware and conscious of your existence, justifying abortion by saying that a fetus is not alive or human is wrong, it is justifyable because a woman has the right to her body and what she does with it.
As long as killing is justifiable, it is permittable I guess. I think it is kind of ironic though, pro lifers advocating the deaths of abortion doctors.
The comment by FlowCell was made in response to me linking this video so show him my background with that "necessity" stuff, in terms of whether or not locking up a thief would be a violation of his rights.
To which I said, only if it was necessary to prevent greater harm and linked him to this video, for aforementioned reason.
damn. XD
For those wondering, by self ownership, I'm pro-choice: Until that baby is born, it is a part of her body, and hence, her property.
This is a smart Video. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion.generic lanoxin.com
JaysonRexs 2 weeks ago
Totally agreed here. It is not the ok, right or moral thing to do, but purely necessity. If it's the only option and killing the offender is the only way to prevent further harm, then so be it. At least though it's not like this as it is in some countries: A guy runs at you with a machete. You shoot him and kill him. You are then trialed and found guilty and serve jail time for using 'over excessive force' in self defense. Now that's complete bullshit.
TheHandgunhero 2 weeks ago
I'm a Libertarian, I believe it's not 'ok' to kill however I think it is justifable if you are defending your democracy, freedom and other peoples rights to being individuals.
I also agree in cases of defence of your property and preventing of others dying. BUT I think there needs to be some rules to prevent a power abuse and death should only be considered as a last action, for example if a man is going to kill a human.
ForeverComplaining 3 weeks ago
@LegendofHogger Again, I would use the term "necessary" rather than "okay" or "right."
shanedk 6 months ago
What if a pro-life person, knowing exactly what was about to take place, happened to be in the abortion room just before it was going to happen, and the only way to stop it from happening was by lethal force...how is that different from the old lady/atm scenario?
jimpharris1 7 months ago
@jimpharris1 Very good point, one to be considered! But I personally think that is unjustifiable as the debate to when life starts... well it's exactly that a debate, no one is more right than the other.
However when it is a actually human life form, then by all means...
Also abortion wouldn't be an illegal act, as opposed to endangering human life/murder/serious grevious bodily harm, so that is how it would differ I suppose.
ForeverComplaining 3 weeks ago
What if a pro-life person, knowing exactly what was about to be done, happened to be in the abortion room just before it was going to take place..and the only way to stop it from happening was lethal force...how different is that scenario from the old lady/atm scenario?
jimpharris1 7 months ago
First Time I see your Face; Look like a nice Person :)
LutzDerLurch 9 months ago
Yo, quick promblem with you're scenario, Why do you have to kill the guy?
Surely there are other ways to take him down other than just killing him.
Just saying.
Love; Birdie
crashkadara 1 year ago
@crashkadara Well he may get up and kill you and the victim. I'm not saying it's ok or good, but like Shane argues I think it's justifiable if you are defending innocent life/democracy,
ForeverComplaining 3 weeks ago
@ForeverComplaining Sorry If my answer is a little shaky on this one, It's been a year.
Anyway, I personally don't think it's okay to kill anyone. Ever. Regardless of what their doing/have the potential to do. How is killing one person (in this case the robber) any better than allowing them to kill another? I simply can't justify it. Honestly I don't know what I would do in this situation, all I know is that I could not possibly take another human beings life.
crashkadara 3 weeks ago
@crashkadara Exactly, I wouldn't be able to kill either, however If I saw innocent life in danger, I would try and stop it, but I wouldn't intentionally kill, however it may lead to that and I think if it does lead to that, but you were defending life then I think it is justifiable and you shouldn't be punished for it.
ForeverComplaining 3 weeks ago
@ForeverComplaining Understand that, if it came to that, even if the assailant were armed with nothing more than a knife and were a good 20+ feet away, the time you would have to make a decision before the person was kill would be less than 2 seconds. Probably closer to 1.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two)."
Today's lesson: Do not listen to a bumbling moron on the interned shrieking "Those damn americans and their over-inflated military budget!!" ever again
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 well that's not entirely true. if you look at a site which breaks down govenrment spending (usgovernmentspendingDOTcom is fairly accurate and has a very detailed breakdown of spending) healthcare is 6.5% of GDP, pensions are 5.5%, education is 6% and military is about 5.0%. military IS less but compare this to other countries. the EU average is only 1.6%, germany, japan and switzerland are 0.8%, and switzerland stil has conscription.
Fernoe 1 year ago
@Fernoe Of course if you're going to compare to other countries, many countries education is budget is more like 3%, healthcare is 1% in singapore, 2% in hong kong and 2.9% in switzerland and some coutnries don't even have a state pension. the government could EASILY cut their entire budget in half.
Fernoe 1 year ago
@Fernoe Now all you have to realize is that comparing those things with GDP is bullshit.
shanedk 1 year ago
What makes your analogy so poor is that very few abortionists will kill an infant in the womb that would easily survive induced labor delivery as Tiller did. You aren't being honest when you say women will go somewhere else for that. Killing him actually did prevent some women in the US from doing this to their fully developed unborn. I think you're either delusional or just a douchebag without credibility for skewing the fact that Tiller killed babies capable of surviving outside of the womb.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov Oh, you KNOW they would survive? You're an OB-GYN who examined every single case personally?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You don't have to be an ob-gyn or examine every case personally to know what the survivability rate is of the children he was "aborting" rather than just delivering. Thanks for the additional strawman though.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov No, YOU claimed to know that they WOULD have survived--EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM--if they hadn't been aborted. Put up or shut up.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The comment is right there, read it again. I never made any such claim. I said very few would do something like that, Tiller was one of them. I never said anything along the lines of me knowing knowing "EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM" would have survived. But hey, like that changes the reality of both of us knowing that many of them could have survived. Oh I could tell you why the ocean meets the shore. I'd think of things I never thought before and then I'd sit,.. and think some more.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov Actually, no. Murdering a doctor doesn't stop women from wanting and needing abortions. If a woman really wants one and the doctor is killed, she can go somewhere else or do it herself some other way, or maybe even kill the baby right after it's born. How is that better? And by logic like yours, roeders and paul hills, would it be okay to gun down women who've had abortions too?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov This point is retarded because first off, how can you even obtain the fact that the murder prevented some women from getting abortions? These abortions were legal in he state as long as it was determined by to other doctors the birth would cause extreme complications. Do you even know why he performed these abortions? He performed them for women who would be killed or have extreme complications due to the pregnancy. These were not random women who wanted a late term abortion.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov as for women going somewhere else for an abortion, Women in El Salvador brave prosecution (sentenced for murder) and death just to illegally obtain their abortions. The fact is if the women wants an abortion she's going to get it legal or not. Anti-abortion laws are retarded because they are not a deterrent and they cause more problems than they solve. I don't think killing this doctor accomplished much of anything except maybe showing how religion can fuel some nasty shit.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ Sarah Yates would have drowned her kids no matter what so lets open up clinics full of bathtubs for women to drown their children in safely. You're right, religion can fuel some stupid and nasty shit. Anti religion fuels just as much stupid and nasty shit.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov Drowning your children is not the same as an abortion. The child is not inside of you. It is not a part of you. It is a major difference. I can think of many more reasons people did something horrible because of religion than because they were against religion.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ Of course you can think of many more religious attrocities than non religious attrocities. That must be because you're not anti religious with bias. Tell me something else I don't know. The Sarah Yates comparison isn't spot on? That isn't why you would get charged for murder or manslaughter if you deliberately kicked an expecting mothers stomach in an attempt to kill that little non human inside? Yep, a human when we want it to be, holocaust jew status when we don't right?
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov well I mean can you name any non religious atrocities? That is, not someone who did something wrong and they weren't religious, but someone who did something wrong for the sole purpose of being against religion. Nothing really comes to mind here. There may be a few but i mean nothing can compare to the horrible things religion has fueled. I really do think it is ridiculous to compare the two. Even throughout recent history there's been many including Darfur.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ You're right, drowning your children isn't the same. Children you drown at least get to enjoy their existance in the outside world for a little while. The premise however is the same and we might as well provide clinics for women like Sarah Yates so that they can drown their kids safely and without consequence. Then we need to redefine drowning our kids to being something other than the killing of a human. Then promote it as being a responsible act because nobody wants them anyway.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
@Vlaxitov As for abortion, there is just no point in making it illegal. First off whether you want to hear it or not the fact of the matter is the right to abortion is directly linked to women's rights. Taking away a women's right to choose and forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then leads to inequality between men and women. The truth of the matter is pregnancy is a hindrance to women only and not men. Once the right to abort a fetus is taken away women are second class citizens.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ Not to mention the nagging little fact that prohibition doesn't work.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk theres just too much riding against pro-life. Being pro-lifr is just a selfish view anyway. If you don't like abortion don't have one, but please stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ The fact that it's 'inside' someone is not because they are 'part' of that body. That's like saying any parasyte inside of you is part of your body (Bad analogy, I'll admit it... but I think it works.). The baby is dependant on your body, true, but it's not part of it.
And before you ask. No. I'm not a religious. I'm actually a Deist.
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 But it does mean that, for all practical purposes, it is as though it were a part of the woman's body. So while you could make the argument that there's no moral difference, you cannot make the argument that there isn't a huge practical difference staring us in the face, and that any attempt to enforce the moral choice will be fraught with the same peril as telling people they can't drink alcohol.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "you cannot make the argument that there isn't a huge practical difference staring us in the face" Won't deny that. But I want to say that Killing isn't always the answer (Unless there's lifes in inmediate danger). There are more solutions that just rip the poor thing to pieces, there's adoption...
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 you said abortion is not the key to gender equality. When men and women have sex, if abortion is illegal, there is a huge difference between potential risk between men and women. Men can just leave, while women are stuck with a fetus for 9 months. There are no pro-life countries where men and women have equal rights.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ "Men can just leave" That's running away Shinji-style, abortions are just the same, you run away from responsabilities, that would be equallity, but that would make them both cowards. Personally, I'm willing to accept responsability for the baby. And by the way, a lot of (if not all) pro-abortion countries also have gender inequality.
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 There is so much information you can easily find on Gender Equality and Abortion. There are whole college level courses dedicated to the issue. If you just look maybe you will understand it. Just because YOU wouldn't leave a pregnant women doesn't mean everyone also wouldn't. Whether you like it or not gender equality is directly effected by the countries stance on abortion. There is a huge difference in the level of gender inequality between Pro-choice and Pro-life nations.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 Whereas it is not cowardly to make decisions for a person while they bare all the consequences?
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules They are the ones who must chose not to, only a coward would abandon a child (or fetus in this case) to die... If a woman gets pregant due to casual sex without protection, she must take responsibility for her recklessness, same thing goes for the man.
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 Who said killing is always the answer?
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Isn't that what abortion entails? You can choose if you want to be a mother or not, so you're free to kill your unborn brethen and deny them the chance to live... I just can't process the fact that that could be seen as good... wouldn't drowning your baby or throwing them to die on the streets be the same thing? I mean, if the woman is free to choose, she can choose that she doesn't want to be a mother anymore as well. Just sayin'
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 We have a LOT of problems with the adoption system to fix before that becomes a viable solution.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So your point is that abortion is like Euthanasia: Mercy Killing?
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 WHAT??? How on EARTH did you get from "we need to seriously reform the adoption system" to "abortion is mercy killing"???
Maybe THIS is why you pro-lifers have such a tough time convincing people...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You want to know how? After analysing a lot of pro-choice essays and comments, I came to that conclussion, you guys think that abortion must be a way of mercy-killing, due to, if the babies are born, they won't enjoy the same benefits as if they're wanted children.
That said, I guess you ARE right, adoption system has its problems... reforming it is (or at least should be) a priority.
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 Reform the adoption system and more people will opt for it rather than aborting. Get the government down to its constitutional functions and can eliminate the Income Tax and replace it with nothing (and no deficits); this will result in people being able to keep even more of their money and make it easier for them to afford children, causing fewer abortions. It will also let parents, who no longer have to work as much, be involved in their kids' lives, reducing it even further.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk That's a good point, now if only we could get someone in an influential position to care about that matter...
But wouldn't reduce taxes affect the economy in a negative way?
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 "But wouldn't reduce[d] taxes affect the economy in a negative way?"
Only if government spending isn't reduced on par with the reduction in tax revenues.
Shane is for vastly decreased government spending, just so you know.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Which is why I said, "Get the government down to its constitutional functions."
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Yes, but the subtlety was clearly lost on him, so I wanted to make it nice and clear.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd I can't blame Shane for that position though, considering most of USA's taxes go to... well, the military budget (Or so I've heard); instead of health care, education, adoption centres or other useful stuff.
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two).
shanedk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "That isn't true; 80% of the budget is divided fairly evenly between the military, Medicare, and Social Security (if anything, the military by proportion is less than the other two)."
Today's lesson: Do not listen to a bumbling moron on the interned shrieking "Those damn americans and their over-inflated military budget!!" ever again...
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
Comment removed
rebelq1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk
I'm curious. Are you a minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist?
It would be really nice if you respond.
rebelq1 1 year ago
@GohanLSSJ2 I don't believe so, I think it puts more money in our pockets, money which we'll invest in banks to buy houses or say use to spend money and stimulate the economy.
See I believe that state owned things, whilst I'm sure they mean good (I see them as opressive though), they seem to consume your wealth and give little back.
ForeverComplaining 3 weeks ago
@Vlaxitov Just look at every country where abortions are illegal. They are all controlled strictly by men and it is seen as taboo for a women to do anything but be a stay at home mother taking care of their children. This is all besides the fact that it would be illogical to even make abortion illegal because 1. Women will find more dangerous ways to have an abortion, potentially harming themselves and 2. what would even be the punishment for having one? This would only effect women. Inequality.
nameofmeAJ 1 year ago
@nameofmeAJ I don't think that killing you sons without legal punisment is the key for gender equality, just sayin'...
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
Spare us your morally relativistic utilitarianism, 'It is not OK or right, but necessary' bullshit. It is not necessary at all. You can just let a criminal kill innocent people if you want, you'd risk being killed yourself after all. It IS both OK and the right thing to do'. Furthermore, it is moral and virtuous, having risked your own life to destroy a criminal who was about to commit a violent crime. Initiating force is evil, retaliating against it is moral.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 "You can just let a criminal kill innocent people if you want, you'd risk being killed yourself after all."
I NEVER said that. Stop LYING.
You can argue that it is immoral (or at least a weakness) to NOT take the necessary step of killing the criminal, but the MOMENT you argue it is right or moral to do so, you're on your way to flying planes into buildings.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No, I said it, you can just let the criminal kill the woman to save harm to yourself, I don't see room for the concept of 'necessity'. The woman killing the criminal, yes, you could argue that is also necessary. And no, an action is either moral or it is not, and hence, since you pose a binary situation (kill or no kill), and you say no-kill is immoral, the kill in this case would be moral. And RE plane & buildings, no, that is usually an initiation of force, not a retaliation.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 "And no, an action is either moral or it is not"
Well, thank you for proving that you're a potentially-dangerous dogmatist...
You ARE aware than the 9/11 attacks were in retaliation for the US having troops on their holy lands, right?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The people in the buildings were not US troops. We are talking about the morality of the actions of individuals. Talking about the actions of nations is separate (and much more complicated) issue.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 You're going by YOUR morality, NOT theirs. According to THEIR morality, what they did was right.
Don't you get the difference? "Right" means whatever you can justify with whatever code or book or whatever that you want to use. "Necessity" is an objective evaluation: They say it was right, you say it was wrong. But was it NECESSARY? No, clearly not.
shanedk 1 year ago
Here is a scenario and question which may not be more than wording nitpicking. You emphasize that it is not "Okay", but "Necessary" to kill in some situations.
What about those situations where the benefit is far greater than a loss, in humanitarian terms? For example, I have seen people who claim that, if they could, they would cause extinction of all life on the planet. If they were about to so so, would it not only be necessary, but moral, to kill them (and save billions, plus nonhumans)?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
You know I was thinking taxes being immoral. No matter how much or how little the government steal from us through taxes it is still wrong. But like in your video the issue isn't always is moral but is it necessary. The answer to that question is probably yes but not in a huge amount. We still need to finance a state. We don't need to finance a huge state.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
Why is it that most people who are "pro-life" support the death penalty, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
Yea youtube arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lBluefellow 1 year ago
I love your videos and I am appreciative of the logic, though (because of my moral beliefs) I do not support abortion, I see your point and share in this belief/commonsense.Keep em coming your videos are delightful.
polkg123 1 year ago
so for you killing a human being is not killing a human being, a pure creationist point of view of delusion. First what you are talking about in the end is a moral jugement. If you have a minimal education you know that moral judgement doesn't mean a answer is good or bad (that is something you have problem with,pretty sure) and that the way you answer the question you ask just show you have the moral judgement of a child. By no mean I want to be mean with you...
olivierpicard18 1 year ago
well he might not of stopped those women from getting abortions but he might of stop certain ones from having late term abortions, from what i understand there is only a handful of doctors performing later term abortions in that state. its just something to think about, oh and since when is it the woman's body??? is the dna exact?? i dont think so
kennykensworth 1 year ago
Why is it okay to kill innocent blood but people freak out when people kill Murderers of babies??!! I am TOTALLY against ANY KILLING!!!!
laurajdahl 1 year ago
@laurajdahl
Your morals are skewed. Our value on life has always been based on the self-awareness that the life possesses. A foetus does not have self-awareness. At worst you're killing a person that has yet to become aware of their own existance yet, at best you're killing a clump of cells that has yet to become a life.
Do I like the idea of abortion? Hell no, if possible I hope that no one would resort to such a thing. But that doesnt give you the right to bring up stupid "baby murder" jibes.
GrandHighGamer 1 year ago
Excellent explanation of the Necessity Defense! And if you were correct that women "would just go somewhere else", you would be correct that it doesn't apply in Roeder's case. But only two late termers remain, who are less skilled and "a bit wonky" according to the Feb GQ magazine. Even when doors were merely blocked a few hours, many mothers never rescheduled their murders. So the only real contested issue is: are babies human? I would welcome this as a response to Roeder's post trial statement
BibleWizard2 1 year ago
Perfect!
jsaari1183 1 year ago
@shanedk
I missed some good conjecture on this subject, I did notice the conversation had moved to how beneficial making things Illegal was, And I find a point of agreement here, I believe that making alcohol Illegal is dumb it just doesn't work, as well as drugs and prostitution and Abortion. This is not the way to deal with these problems, So while I am 100% against abortion I am 100% against making it Illegal, Just like Sarah Palin :)
thatbritts 2 years ago
Sounds good to me! (Except the Sarah Palin bit...)
shanedk 2 years ago
Strange as it may seem I think we prob, would agree on 99% Of everything, I am a conservative, I do not ever wish to tell you how to live you're life, But I will not tolerate someone telling me how to live my life.
thatbritts 1 year ago
making it illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
you know what else is immoral? creating laws that force people to hide from legal protection, which leaves defenseless if they are the victim of crime. prostitutes and drug addicts get exploited a lot more in countries where drugs and prostitution are illegal.
Fernoe 2 years ago 2
@Fernoe Very well put.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
You have decreed the violent imposition of your will upon others to be a good thing, something to aspire to. We will oppose you at ever turn on this issue the same way we would oppose a white supremacist who wished to re-institute slavery.
You're a vile, disgusting little worm.
Virgil0211 2 years ago 2
Whatever. Your inability to take responsibility for your own arguments is noted by all.
shanedk 2 years ago
Bottom line: you want to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. That's blatant tyranny.
shanedk 2 years ago
So, to you, women being victimized by pimps and all of the other problems that come with prohibition IS part of a healthy society?
shanedk 2 years ago
@1:10: Brought to you by your friends at the FCC.
=P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
You LIED OUTRIGHT when you said prostitutes in Nevada cannot quit. THAT IS A LIE. Don't deny you said it, and don't try to keep claiming it's true when it isn't.
shanedk 2 years ago
@ChoochNation
Also, I never said that it should be legal to coerce women into prostitution by force. YOU attributed that position to me. You are either ignorant, or you're a liar trying to score cheap points.
WAMill3R 2 years ago 2
@ChoochNation
I actually agree that prostitution is immoral. That said, if it's voluntary, I don't think that it should be a "crime" in the same way that I don't think that other behaviors that are detrimental to oneself (but not others), should be crime. Banning a certain behavior for the "good" of the person practicing that behavior ALWAYS leads to far worse evils.
WAMill3R 2 years ago 10
@ChoochNation
My point was that pimps exist because prostitution is illegal, and therefore the prostitutes cannot go to the cops if pimps exploit them, similar to how criminals were able to gain control of liquor operations by literally killing the competition because they couldn't go to the authorities BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL, and that in both cases the problem would be solved in large part by not making it illegal. Are you dense?
WAMill3R 2 years ago
No, there's a difference between prohibition and common law. But I wouldn't expect a state cultist to understand that.
shanedk 2 years ago
Reminds me of that jackass on the LeagueofReason forums who kept saying that because you (Shane) are against prohibition, that you are against laws that forbid murder, theft, etc.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Yep. It's a common thing: the statists just don't get the difference between prohibition and common law, or how statutory laws were only supposed to be codifications of common law.
shanedk 2 years ago
Strange, I've talked to several myself who have done just that. YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 2 years ago
1. That's not Libertarianism; it's not even Anarchy.
What you describe is "Anomie".
2. Slippery Slope fallacy.
Judging by your comment's content (or lack thereof), I think not.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
You deliberately cheapened the plight of the black slaves just to score some cheap points in a political discussion. That's RACIST. You're a VILE and DISGUSTING person. And I don't CARE if other people do it--THEY'RE vile and disgusting, too!
YES, conditions improve with legalization! Just ask the prostitutes in Nevada, where it IS legal!
shanedk 2 years ago
Exactly! PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK! Don't prohibit ANYTHING!
shanedk 2 years ago
Teller contributes just as much to the writing as Penn does. What a lame excuse!
WHY can pimps abuse women? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!!!
Prostitution is less reprehensible than slavery BECAUSE IT'S VOLUNTARY! One more racist fuck shitting all over the graves of the slaves...
shanedk 2 years ago
Boy, it's just one pathetic excuse after another, isn't it? And all so you can ignore the point: that the problems you're talking about ONLY HAPPEN WITH PROHIBITION.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Prostitution does not fall under 'my body, my choice' in the real world. Perhaps you've heard of people called 'pimps'."
That's a retarded example. It's like someone saying during the Prohibition era that that Prohibition should be kept in place because men like Al Capone ran liquor operations. Pimps exist because prostitutes can't go to the police if the pimp is extorting money from her. You're being extremely inconsistent in your logic.
WAMill3R 2 years ago
choise of words like Seedie
christinepeace 2 years ago
Pimps are around BECAUSE it's illegal. It's like prohibition and the mob selling alcohol. There was lots of violance involved with alcohol sales then but not now... BECAUSE it is legal and can be done within the law where shop owners can go to the police if violence occurs. If prostitution was legal they could get pimps arrested and would operate out of legitimate stores and not in the street.
Watch Penn &Tellers "bullshit" episodes about this they did a good job debunking it.
dlandon2000 2 years ago 2
In this scenario I'd use the minimum amount of force needed to stop the assailant. People are fragile though... I can't guarantee the assailant would not die from shock if I was to say grab him by the arm too hard.
In my opinion a fetus is just a wad of tissue until it starts developing a personality. The tissue itself has no value. To kill a personality for disposing of unwanted tissue is wrong.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
The video was spot on until 4:32.
Vamavid 2 years ago
Why do you say that?
shanedk 2 years ago
Coz someone could turn around and say, "the woman shouldn't have driven while drunk coz the horny rapist would have just found another victim." Remember, Dr. Tiller was one of the few who'd perform late-term abortions and so Roeder may have indeed stopped the abortions.
Vamavid 2 years ago
If you think that's in ANY way the same thing, you have no concept of logic!
You have NO CAUSE to say that even ONE abortion was caused by this act of MURDER. The necessity defense CANNOT APPLY.
shanedk 2 years ago
In the last bit of that comment, I think you mean "...was stopped by this act..."
That's a very confusing sentence otherwise.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Whatever man. That was just my 2 cents.
Vamavid 2 years ago
Except the woman could have either gone to another (you yourself said one of few, not the only one), and even if he was, she could have gone to a back-alley abortionist, or even used a rusty coat hanger.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I suck at playing the devil's advocate, don't I?
Vamavid 2 years ago
This time, yeah, but it happens.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
@shanedk, I liked your video, However I can also see where at least one baby wasn't aborted as a direct result of Roeders actions most likely many more lived due to this. So did he not save a innocent life? I do not support killing abortionists but I also do not think Roeder committed a crime. Scary thought isn't it? May be that killing baby's is just a dangerous occupation?
thatbritts 2 years ago
--abortion is LEGAL in the USA
--physicians performing LEGAL medical procedures in the USA are not charged with murder
--women choosing abortion in the USA are not charged with murder
--COLD-BLOOD, PREMEDITATED MURDER IS ILLEGAL IN THE USA
i hope scott roeder lives another 40+ years and rots to death in prison. and after that, if i thought there were a "hell," i'd hope that scott roeder burned in hell for all of eternity.
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
Comment removed
3slimdog 2 years ago
@FKASG9SSM
Ya just like the Nazi's thought it was legal to kill Jews, Didn't work out for them at Nuremberg, 60000 dead @ Tillers hands 1 mass murderer dead @ Roeders hands.
If you cared to know the facts before you spout your ignorance, You would know that Tiller financed corrupt gov, officials to save himself from prosecution on a myriad of crimes he committed against tens of thousands, as well as victims as young as 9yrs old. You really should research whom you choose for a poster Boy.
thatbritts 2 years ago
@thatbritts
--dr tiller killed no one.
--ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA.
--cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder is ILLEGAL IN THE USA
--scott roeder GUILTY OF 1ST DEGREE MURDER
end of story
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
Here is where it all really is, I am convinced that abortion for convenience is Murder. you dont and are unwilling to consider that at the moment of conception the a living being exists, therefor there is no murder rather just a lump of cells, Well I think all Roeder did was rearrange the lump of cells sitting on the Teflon killer, Doc, Tillers shoulders :)
I do want to say once again I do not support killing abortionists. except that killing baby's is just a dangerous occupation.
thatbritts 2 years ago
@thatbritts
and i do want to say again, dr tiller didn't murder anybody, particularly not babies.
ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA
scott roeder committed pre-meditated cold-blooded murder which of course is ILLEGAL in the USA
again, end of story
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
@thatbritts
and by the way, i won't tell you what to do with your uterus as long as you don't tell me what to do with my uterus. MY body, MY CHOICE.
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
Question: does that same philosophy apply to drugs and prostitution?
shanedk 2 years ago
Answer:
--illegal drugs are, well, illegal in the USA
--prostitution (in most states) is illegal in the USA
ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
You said, YOUR body, YOUR choice. Why should that apply to abortion and not drugs or prostitution?
shanedk 2 years ago
why are you so stubborn about this?
it is MY choice to do with MY body any and everything that is LEGAL in the USA and nothing that is ILLEGAL in the USA.
illegal drugs are illegal
prostitution in some states is illegal
ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA
are you so ignorant that you cannot understand the distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
I just want to know why that argument doesn't apply to drugs and prostitution. And you CAN'T say because they're illegal--that's CIRCULAR REASONING! Can you JUSTIFY them being illegal, since it IS your body?
This is what SICKENS me about hypocritical liberals...it's your body, until it's THEIR form of tyranny we're talking about!
shanedk 2 years ago
my argument does not apply to illegal drugs and prostitution because they are illegal. fortunately, women don't have to risk their lives getting back-alley abortions because ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE USA.
my point was re ABORTION. as in>> my uterus, my body, MY CHOICE.
it was YOU who brought illegal drugs and prostitution into this debate, which of course has no relevance in the abortion debate.
MURDER does have relevance, since anti-choicers claim abortion is murder.. WRONG.
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
My body, my choice, why cant I use whatever substance want for recreation? Or sell myself? I have no disagreement with abortion, but are you that thick? How can you not see the connection between self-ownership of one's body and the use of drugs or prostitution?
Apply the same logic you use for abortions to drugs and prostitution. My body, my choice.
"It's illegal" is not justification for prohibition nor is "it's legal" a justification for abortion-it's justified bc you own your body.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
I kind of have to agree with shanedk on this one.
The question isn't what is legal or illegal, it's WHY is it legal or illegal.
What is the justification for it being illegal?
Where is the social harm from these activities?
In the case of drugs and prostitution, they don't cause any direct harm to others or society, just like abortions, and they fall under 'it's your body' category.
So why is it the drugs and prostitution illegal while abortion is not?
glukolover 2 years ago
@glukolover says "In the case of drugs and prostitution, they don't cause any direct harm to others or society"
the junkie that can't work or care for their family, or who robs people or businesses to score their next fix, or who drive while wasted and severely injure or kill innocent people?
prostitution, what about STDs? what about physical, mental and emotional abuse of the hookers? what about stealing from the johns?
taxpayer burden because of prosecution of the above?
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
Again, these things happen BECAUSE they're illegal. Did you know that in 1913 even an 8-year-old kid could go into a drugstore and buy heroin or cocaine?
shanedk 2 years ago
So pre-crime is your justification? You might do something bad with drug X, so you can't have it? Abusus non tollit usum. Why not ban alcohol by the same reasoning?
I would never encourage anyone to go into prostitution, but who do you think are healthy, street walkers in LA, or in the brothels around Las Vegas? Or escorts? Or independent women operating online through things like craigslist?
Seriously? Court costs? The amount of money spent prosecuting hookers and drug users is absurd.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago 2
And what's to stop a "junkie" from doing any of your examples now? Nothing. All the billions spent in the drug war he will have no problem getting heroin or crack, not even in prison. Studies asking people if they would try hard drugs if they were legal show that less than 1% of the population would, so there will be no boom in users, but they will no longer be ostracized by the law for using drugs. Take the heroin maintenance program in Switzerland that dramatically reduced crime by addicts.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
How many hookers would steal from their clients if they were operating legally and had a reputation for it? How many prostitutes steal to make more money because their pimp(who has a local monopoly on prostitution bc of it's prohibition by law enforcement) takes most of their pay? Making prostitution illegal has not reduced it in the slightest, has lead to abusive pimps,terrible working conditions and more STDs. Brothels/girls that want to keep themselves clean will require condoms or testing.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
@glukolover
"What is the justification for it being illegal?
Where is the social harm from these activities?"
so you would encourage your children to engage in prostitution and do illegal drugs?
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
It always comes down to that, doesn't it? The ONLY reason we'd be in favor is because we want to do it ourselves? It COULDN'T be because we don't want the increased crime, increased taxes, increased poverty, increased police corruption, and everything else that goes along with insane prohibitionist policies, could it?
No, I don't want my kids to do those things any more than I want them to smoke or drink alcohol. But we want those things to stay legal, right?
shanedk 2 years ago
That's asinine, short answer is no, but my children aren't running around having abortions either. (if I had any)
You can spin anything to make it look bad.
But in reality, the vast majority of cases isn't going to cause such results.
For example, driving vehicles is legal.
Yet in the wrong hands it is very easy to kill people with it, and people do die every year as a result.
So should we make it illegal?
By your logic, yes we should.
But what would be the harm of making it illegal?
glukolover 2 years ago
no, what's asinine is you trying to advance stupid arguments unrelated to abortion in defense of your position ON abortion.
if one is sober while operating a vehicle legally and one gets into an accident, nobody is prosecuted (perhaps a citation is issued). end of story.
since you were quick to label me, let me guess, you're a libertardian? which just might be worse than a conservatard.
FKASG9SSM 2 years ago
This is getting tiresome.
I have not problem with abortions, drugs or prostitution, and see not good reason for any of these to be illegal.
Weather legal or not, people still have/use these things, they do not go away if illegal.
However, if legal, then they can be regulated, and to be made much safer and more difficult for minors to get a hold of.
This has been well documented in several countries.
I do not subscribe to any particular ideology
I base my opinions on facts, not emotion..
glukolover 2 years ago 2
no, what is "asinine" is your inability to comprehend the logic against your argument or perhaps you do understand, but you are incapable of rebuking it. Legality is not the question, the ethical stance; the justification for such matter is. Do you think killing a raped woman for the "honor" of the family is justified if youre under sharia law? You see, your "legality argument" is baseless to begin with and its fallacious in itself. You are the one advancing stupid arguments.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago 2
Continued...
Everything is tradeoffs.
But making something illegal, doesn't make the problem go away, and in some cases, will cause far greater problems had it not been illegal.
Case in point, prohibitions on alcohol have resulted in pushing it underground, causing crime rates and criminal activity to rise dramatically.
More crime, more violence, more people in prison.
All to stop a few people getting drunk.
Most people however, don't drink until their drunk.
Prohibitions don't work.
glukolover 2 years ago 2
@glukolover: As Mary Ruwart would probably say, "Prohibition is a cure worse than the disease."
PS: Cool user name.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Never heard that saying before.
It's good, got to remember that one.
Btw, can't say I like this old username.
Too lazy to make another account.
glukolover 2 years ago
YOU are the one who said, "my body, my choice." I'm asking why it ONLY applies to this issue, and not other consensual behaviors which harm no one but which a tyrannical state has deemed illegal?
shanedk 2 years ago
I dont ever wish to tell you what do do, However a Doctor knows better than to be doing late term abortions, and hiding abuse of 9yr old Girls.
thatbritts 2 years ago
I was talking to FKASG9SSM.
shanedk 2 years ago
@thatbritts please learn more about abortions before going into a chat room and stating that such and such a person is a murder because he killed cells it doesn't do anything for you other then prove that your a moron
now answer this question
which is worse killing a stilborn/ deformed/ cancer celled embreo (baby) or murding a person already past the formation in the womb.
riotguards 2 years ago
@thatbritts
He "saved" a fetus by killing a person-- that's not exactly an even trade-off. Scott Roeder committed first degree murder, and thankfully-- he was convicted of this.
He's a bastard, and I honestly hope that, should these freaks try and murder more doctors, they get what for.
GoldSkywalkern 2 years ago
Who cares if the same women going to kill there kid at tillers chop shop will eventually find another abortionist or not! At least the murderer tiller was stopped and if one women doesn't get an abortion because tiller was offed then it was worth it. This video is like saying why lock up drug dealers, drug addicts will just find another drug dealer to get their fix from. This guys logic is as flawed as his humor.
yabruf 2 years ago
"This video is like saying why lock up drug dealers, drug addicts will just find another drug dealer to get their fix from."
Actually, that is EXACTLY right--and that's why it's BOGUS. See Episode 4 of Bogosity.
shanedk 2 years ago
Agreed.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Or if need be, find something around the house to get a fix from, or in the abortion case, look for a rusty coat-hanger...
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
By that "logic" you could kill the pope because he's condems condom use in africa which undoubtedly kills thousands of people so if killing him means few people die then it's ok?
Your "logic" (add eye roll) is dangerous since it could be used to rationalize the murder of LOTS of people.
dlandon2000 2 years ago 2
no because if you killed the Pope, another like minded person would take his place. It's the religion that would have to be stopped. In order to that you would have to kill everyone the believes. Most of those are innocent people just following what they see as a law.
xchosen123 2 years ago
I agree with you I was just giving an example of how you can use this guys warped logic to justify the murder of just about anybody.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
The only problem in your theory is that you have to prove you were in danger of a greater crime....in a court of law. So it is not just an easy excuse. Ever have to pay for a lawyer? It is not cheap.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
No. It doesn't. In order to for his logic to be used you must do 2 things. 1) You must prove that you killing him is less of a crime then what he is doing, and 2) you must prove that killing him will resolve the problem. You can't just kill anyone for anything. There are strict rules to this.
xchosen123 2 years ago
In Shane's example you have a Killer trying to kill an innocent old lady. Most would it's the lesser crime to kill the Killer then to kill the innocent. Once the Killer is dead, the old lady is safe. So both 1 and 2 are meet. If there were 2 Killers and you only killed 1 the let the other kill the old lady, then you haven't stopped the crime and the murder isn't justified.
xchosen123 2 years ago
Yes I know and agree I was showing him (Yabruf) that his line of reasoning wasn't sound.
Sheesh
dlandon2000 2 years ago
o ok. When i first commented to you youtube had your comment standing alone, so it looked like you were talking about Shane's logic. But now it is showing as your comment was a replie to yabruf.
xchosen123 2 years ago
No thats incorrect. If thousands of people die in Africa thats their choice and has no connection to the Pope. You act if the Pope takes away free will and is some kind of assumed authority figure. So since your example would only be valid if there was no such thing as free will you fail in that regard. Your understanding of logical thought (add three stooges eye poke to stop eye roll) is dangerous since you could influence others (namely small children) into thinking you were correct.
yabruf 2 years ago
Yes, THE POPE IS DOING IT!!! If you lie to someone, you commit FRAUD, and it IS a form of force! It DOES subjugate their free will!
Unless you don't think fraud should be against the law? Should someone just be able to lie to you and con you and rip you off without repercussions?
I have EVIDENCE. THAT is the difference between you and me. Don't you DARE call ME misleading when I have evidence, and when YOU just defended FRAUD THAT KILLS.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
Umm... not sure how to respond to this? Lets see, have you taken your meds yet?
yabruf 2 years ago
So, you respond to an absolute destruction of your pathetic excuse with a pathetic insult? Geez...
shanedk 2 years ago
shanedk is absolutely right.
- A proud pro-lifer.
ladyEulaelie 2 years ago
What about a baby, how self aware is it? when did you become self aware and conscious of your existence, justifying abortion by saying that a fetus is not alive or human is wrong, it is justifyable because a woman has the right to her body and what she does with it.
john38235133 2 years ago
What do you mean potential? are you suggesting that it might turn into a dog or something?
john38235133 2 years ago
As long as killing is justifiable, it is permittable I guess. I think it is kind of ironic though, pro lifers advocating the deaths of abortion doctors.
john38235133 2 years ago
*Waits for the more insane pro-lifers to start giving me death-threats.*
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
The comment by FlowCell was made in response to me linking this video so show him my background with that "necessity" stuff, in terms of whether or not locking up a thief would be a violation of his rights.
To which I said, only if it was necessary to prevent greater harm and linked him to this video, for aforementioned reason.
damn. XD
For those wondering, by self ownership, I'm pro-choice: Until that baby is born, it is a part of her body, and hence, her property.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago