Posted on 05/31/2009 11:33:23 AM PDT by Peter Andrew Conservative
Reports out today that a controversial abortion doctor has been murdered in his own Church, are a "lose-lose" for all sides of the abortion debate. We condemn the killing of late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. Read more...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeamerican.org ...
I personally would have preferred an exorcism to murder.
Don’t know if I missed it but was he killed by someone claiming to be pro-life? Or another reason and everyone is assuming the killer is so called “pro life”.
Whether or not that’s the reason, it’s a terrible act that ought to be condemned. And it’s impossible for a Christian to have committed such a crime. Anyone who would commit such a crime obviously does not believe in the Gospel of Christ.
Now he knows what he put his victims through.
WHO KILLED HIM???? Matters a lot....jealous husband....a hitman from the left to get the abortion issue out in front and change peoples minds back to the pro-death side??
This is not to condone the killing, but please STOP calling him a doctor.
Perhaps. But one thing is certain, he won't be killing any more babies.
I agree in full with you. But sad to say, we are seeing the start of the same pattern of violence erupting over the abortion issue as it was over the years prior to the Civil war of violence erupting over the efforts to end slavery. So sadly I am not suprised.
South 40, should we all whistle “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” to go along with that thought ??
Was King David a follower of God? Yet he committed adultery and had Bath-Sheba’s husband Uriah killed...
No, it’s not impossible for Christians — true followers of God — to do such a thing. Christians are just humans, too. That makes it no less wicked, wrong-headed, and damaging to the Body of Christ and the message of the Gospel...
Agreed. As was Dred Scott, so will be Roe v. Wade... It won’t be the totality of what is to come, but it will be a part of the eventuality....
Except for the babies - it's win-Win-WIN for them!
Murder is murder. How many has this so called doctor killed.
It isnt something I would do or endorse, but I cant say I am sorry he got what he did to others either.
Ironically enough, I live in Wichita, attend a church a mile way from the one Tiller was shot in, and that was the sermon today.
Are you trying to stir up hatred? Collecting names?
This is almost as bad as the nutty "gun lovin' fed hatin'" threads that have popped up this last week.
Too many threads are liberal wet dreams about what they think conservatives are... it's getting tiresome.
I've been here since forever and I've never seen these non-stop "gotta have a revolution", etc type crap. Really, who are you?
There is no such thing as a “pro-life” murderer.
The man/woman who shot this doctor is, at best, an infiltrator in any “life” group he might be a part of.
Odds are also good, I would think, that it might be the angry parent/relative of one of this doctor’s victims, whether a young girl/woman or a murdered baby. I’d say it’s just as likely that the killing was by one of these not associated with a “life” movement.
And, as already stated, it’s not possible to be part of a life movement and commit this act.
And, as always, one should always scrutinize the deceased’s own family and associates for any with a motive for murder.
Not at all true. This is a complete and unmitigated win for the pro-abortion side. The most unappealing face of their movement has been removed from the picture, and they get to paint anyone even slightly uncomfortable with abortion-on-demand as a crazed murderous thug.
Exactly. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don't.
There are precisely three circumstances under which it is morally right to take the life of another:
1. In a just war.
2. To defend yourself or another from an immediate threat to life.
3. A legitimate execution of someone who has been given due process of law.
Your 3 instances of moral killing are exactly right, Wagglebee.
And on #2, it must be, as you say, an immediate threat. For it to be an “immediate” threat, one must be proximately related and proximately present.
I do not want to give the impression, however, that this abortion doctor was a more moral person than his own murderer. He is no hero.
How’s that???
What’s the difference between (purely rhetorical here) someone killing a guy who sucks childrens brains out of their heads daily and someone who kills a guy who’s in the process of murdering a family or a group of people at a gathering?
If it was unchristian to stop the guy, how is any more christian to kill a guy invading your house, or a neighbors?
While I wouldn’t hop-to going out and killing a guy in church I sure would think long and hard about proffering a guilty verdict in the perpetrators trial (and motive would play a huge roll in it)...
Tell me wagglebee, if you were chosen for the jury on the Tiller Murder case, would you convict him?
I know I would vote "Not Guilty".
Ultimately the final arbiter of right and wrong and of guilt or innocence lies with the people and their ability to vote their consciences while sitting on a jury.
Yes this guy broke the law and should be called to account. But those who ultimately sit in judgment of him are bound only by their consciences. I would hope he receives swift justice.
He should be promptly arrested, given a fair trial by a jury of his peers and ultimately acquitted.
What happened today is not all that different from when one murderous, gang-banger thug kills another murderous, gang-banger thug.
Finish your macaroni art before you spill your Elmer's glue...again.
Actually I consider it more along the lines of when a distraught mother murders a child molester after he is granted probation at the end of the trial.
I wouldn't be chosen, because I could not truthfully claim to be impartial.
But those who ultimately sit in judgment of him are bound only by their consciences.
You need to really think about what you are saying here, because believing that juries should be bound by their consciences (which will invariably include feelings and emotions), rather than the rule of law, establishes a more dangerous precedent than you can possibly imagine. The result would be nothing more than anarchy.
IF it turns out that the killer was a relative of one of Tiller's victims I would agree with you.
I suspect that everyone in Kansas is a relative of at least one of his victims.
I would too!
I looked at my Bible and in Exodus chapter 21 vs 12-27 there are a lot of things that call for a death penalty. Among them is causing the unborn to die, see vs 22-23.
That, my FRiend is the law. Juries are the ultimate arbiters of the law. If a law is unjust, a jury is obliged to acquit. The courts try to pretend that the jury does not have the power to nullify a law, but they do. It is inherent in the system and is the final check and balance in our system against tyranny.
The result would be nothing more than anarchy.
Wrong. Ultimately the result is justice.
+++++I looked at my Bible and in Exodus chapter 21 vs 12-27 there are a lot of things that call for a death penalty. Among them is causing the unborn to die, see vs 22-23.+++++
lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you.
Deut 19:10 (ESV)
Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.
Deut 19:13 (ESV)
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Prov 6:16-19 (ESV)
And when it works out the other way, what then?
What do you say when a truly innocent man is found guilty because society hates him and the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?
What do you say when the government decides to put the "evil rich" on trial just because they are rich and they are imprisoned because the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?
This is a tad more complex, the dead Mr. Tiller has a business where daily babies are killed. The law sanctions this without ever a vote of the people, it protects the killer of babies under the color of law. There is, in my mind, no question that babies will live because of the acts of today that otherwise would have been killed by Tiller.
Oh, well. It happens so infrequently that it is not really noticed. The OJ jury decided to free OJ, not because he wasn't guilty, but because they were upset at what they perceived were injustices against people of color. Ultimately OJ got his.
I do recall a woman who shot some child molester in the courtroom in front of 100 witnesses and cameras and IIRC she was either acquitted or convicted of involuntary manslaughter and released for time served. In that case the jury did its duty.
What do you say when a truly innocent man is found guilty because society hates him and the jury members simply followed their consciences/feelings/emotions and nullified the law?
There is nothing stopping them from doing that now, except their own consciences. Most likely in a case like that the judge can overrule the jury and order an acquittal from the bench. Judges, do not, however, have the power to change a jury verdict of "not guilty" to guilty.
Honestly wagglebee, would you vote to convict this guy if you had it in your power to acquit him?
Be honest.
I would convict him because the doctor was at church and not at the clinic.
It’s an important fact.
What is the difference between a Clinic that Murders children and a Church that supports it?
And if we are going to insist, as we have for decades, that Abortion is MURDER, then we are as morally guilty of the killing of Tiller as the guy who pulled the trigger. By calling Abortion "Murder" we equate those who perform the act with being cold blooded killers and we encourage people who act in defense of the unborn to commit acts such as this.
So if we are going to cry crocodile tears over the killing of this serial murderer, then we ought not to be crying crocodile outrage at the guy who took us seriously enough to kill him.
Are we serious when we call Abortion "murder" or are we just bloviating?
I'm beginning to think the latter.
No, it is murder, and we are not bloviating.
Are we bloviating when we say “God will repay.”? It hasn’t happened yet. We’re still waiting.
Or do we believe it?
As in another post I just sent, if we can justify killing the murderer, then we can justify killing all his accomplices, too.
Judges, legislators, and individual, democrat voters.
If one, then all.
However, this has been commonplace in EVERY totalitarian regime in history. The fact that it hasn't happened here yet doesn't mean that Zero isn't thinking about it.
Maybe we really don't consider Abortion to be murder.
Maybe we're just kidding ourselves and blustering.
If, in fact, we all truly believed that every abortion is murder, then we should all be rejoicing that George Tiller is dead.
He will not be committing any more murders. That should be cause for celebration. But I don't see that kind of reaction. Hence, I can only conclude that deep down we really don't believe it is murder. It's bad, but it isn't in the same ballpark as murder.
A trial by a jury of your peers (as guaranteed by our constitution) has certainly NEVER been commonplace in any totalitarian regime.
The whole idea of a guarantee of a trial by a jury "of your peers" is so that the jury of your peers can, if appropriate, nullify unjust laws or acquit you of a crime where your justification outweighs the harm to society.
We must remember that our constitution was written by a bunch of guys who had a healthy distrust of government and who had at one time nearly all committed crimes for which they could have been executed.
Correct, but it is extremely easy for a totalitarian regime to control the jury pool in such a way that the innocent will be convicted.
>> That should be cause for celebration. But I don’t see that kind of reaction. Hence, I can only conclude that deep down we really don’t believe [abortion] is murder. It’s bad, but it isn’t in the same ballpark as murder.
Many people ‘deep down’ do believe abortion is murder.
But it’s all about the law and only within the rule of law will the tragedy of abortion be lessened. As it stands, abortion is legal killing.
Then it will never happen.
Killing unborn children is protected by our constitution and killing those who kill unborn children is murder.
America does not believe that killing unborn children is murder so it isn't.
That's the law.
Work within THAT.
I don't see any easy answers.
It's not murder because judges say it's not murder. However, the governed pass laws in states restricting abortion and courts throw those laws out. So if the courts want to just impose their will and not rule impartially based on the law do they still have the authority to say it's not murder?
The passage I found in Exodus 21:22-23 that I think applies indirectly does have a judge deciding.
All the same, I’m convinced this is a case of a nonbeliever killing a nonbeliever.
I think we are already starting to pay for abortion. The magnet of jobs for illegal immigrants is a direct result of the labor shortage in this country due to reduced birthrates.
The courts created this mess because they imposed abortion on the American people instead of kicking the issue back to the legislative bodies where it should have been resolved. The legislative process is messy and doesn't guarantee the left the outcome they want.
Now we see a killer (we presume killed because the guy was an abortionist) and get a little excited because the abortionist got a little "street justice".
IOW, the issue is only heating up because of the courts not inspite of them.
When did we get a say in it?
Since I believe everything is by the hand of God, it is more appropriate to ask if the death of Tiller is by the direct action of God. In the same way as God saw to the death of Herod Agrippa I, this, too, could be by the direct appointment of God. After all, Tiller was a serial murderer.
>> Then it will never happen.
I believe the legitimate and legal cause of Life can reduce the impact of abortion. It’s a humanitarian concern that should know no political or religious boundaries. Unfortunately, abortion is often characterized as something that should only concern ‘religious’ folks. That needs to change. Those that don’t think abortion is murder should at least recognize it’s legal killing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.