Skip to comments.Abortion doctor's killer says he has no regrets
Posted on 02/10/2010 11:40:39 AM PST by JoeProBono
WICHITA, Kan. - The convicted killer of a Kansas abortion provider has little sympathy for the family of his victim, comparing them to the relatives of a hit man in a recording posted online.
In his first public comments since his trial for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, Scott Roeder also criticized those who sought to keep the issue of abortion out of the proceedings altogether, saying it was like asserting that the trial for abolitionist John Brown was not about slavery.
"My beliefs were that the lives of unborn children were being taken by abortion," Roeder said in the video posted on YouTube Monday. "How you can keep that out of the trial is beyond me, because that was the one entire motive for the action that was taken."
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Gotta’ disagree . . . Pro-Life means just that . . . altho the scumbag was guilty of numerous first-degree murders in his “clinic,” this guy has no right to murder him . . . tough call.
murder is wrong no matter who does it.
If he had killed a mass murderer of preschoolers, I doubt anyone would be on his case.
It is a tough call, but I bet a bunch of babies owe their lives to this guy.
You’re right of course. As far as the doctor goes though, he lived by the sword...
A very late term illegal abortion. He was a burden on Scott. So Scott made the very difficult choice to abort him. It was a personal and private decision, and one that should be respected.
How such a compassion-lacking nutcase could be considered “pro-life” is beyond me. So he has to taunt the relatives of the murdered man? Blinded by his fanaticism.
While I’m personally opposed to extremely late term abortion, I believe its a choice that everyone needs to make on their own. Who am I to force my morals on others?
I know I shouldn’t, but your post made me laugh...I live in Wichita. I’m glad the man is dead.
Your objections to extremely late term abortions are nothing but a bitter clinging to the laws of the Old Testament. You should not impose your religion on others.
‘I wouldn’t partake of such an abortion, but i don’t think it would be right for me to force my values onto others ...’
Yes but “murder” and “killing” are not exact synonymous terms.
“Murder” is the unjust killing of someone. That is why the commandment discussing this is translated correctly as “Thou shalt not murder” or “Thou shalt not kill without just cause.”
The real question is what does the Christian do when government (instituted to administer proper and Godly justice, so people do not take matters into their own hands), protects those committing, and gives its blessing by legalizing of, murder on a certain class of its citizens?
Not to trivialize or overblow it, but it IS the exact same type of question as the “Would you kill Hitler before he was able to kill off millions of people?” What about Stalin? How about Pol Pot? Mao?
Do you really believe that George Tiller, who is proud of the fact he’s murdered thousands of helpless babies, was killed unjustly? He did NOTHING that deserved death? The guy who personally violated the 6th commandment yet the only reason he was not prosecuted and jailed for life is because the people he was murdering weren’t born yet.
You can’t say George Tiller was murdered and use the term “murder” correctly.
So you are anti-death penalty then, too, as I am. Right?
I am pro-innocent life.
A terrorist with an AK-47 in a schoolyard? Not an innocent life. An abortionist?
I’m against the death penalty as well, and I think it would have been good for Tiller to serve life imprisonment for the execution of several hundred thousand unborn babies.
Unless of course it is hirabist terrorist videos calling on the murder of US military personnel of the destruction of the US in general, then those can take months and months to take down if they take them down at all.
Taxpayers paying to feed and care for him? No thanks.
That will give you an idea as to how many babies have been spared. Given what has happened I believe there has been a decline in how many people are now conducting these heinous abortion/murders.
The papers would be screaming bloody murder if Scott Roeder had killed Dr. Tiller by strapping him to a table and sucked HIS brains out of his head, or chopped him up into pieces without anesthetic! This is what "Dr." Tiller did to thousands upon thousands of innocent children.
Dr. George Tiller
You express it well. Tiller deserved death as much as any man could.
“Do you really believe that George Tiller, who is proud of the fact hes murdered thousands of helpless babies, was killed unjustly? “
Am I sorry he’s dead, no. Was he killed unjustly? The death penalty is biblical when applied through the govt. As long as that govt is representing the people and honoring God.
I am going to ask you a question based on your own words.
Do you believe, that America’s government, via the current abortion laws, represents the people and honors God?
I contend that the answer is those laws do not represent the majority of people now, and that these laws are not honoring God.
And I wil lsay you also sidestepped the question if he was killed unjustly. Hint: it’s a yes or no question. Just say yes or no. And if you’re feeling daring, the reasoning behind your yes or no.
“Do you believe, that Americas government, via the current abortion laws, represents the people and honors God?”
“I contend that the answer is those laws do not represent the majority of people now, and that these laws are not honoring God”
I can go with that in a number of areas. Does that mean we can go start shooting people?
“Who am I to force my morals on others?”
A very very effective argument that has marginalized the pro-life movement for years and years.
The reality is we force our morals on each other in many ways every single day. We tell people they cannot steal, they cannot drink and drive, not to remove the tags off pillows, the list is endless.
Why is it ok to snuff out the life of a child when the only difference between it and any other child is that its head has not fully left the birth canal?
The difference is that the law currently protects preschoolers. The law is wrong not to protect the unborn. This case raises the question of when should we give up on the rule of law and take matters into our own hands.
A better analogy would not be a mass murderer operating outside the law, but say government approved euthanasia of preschoolers with parental consent to reduce overpopulation and global warming. The murder of preschoolers even with parental consent should strike a chord in our consciences that would result in many more Scott's giving up on the rule of law and taking action.
As long as elections are free, and abortion remains not a large enough issue to overthrow the current judicial rulings, then the blood of the unborn will be on the nation's hands.
Because I view the abortion laws as wrong, I don't think I could vote to convict this guy. But doesn't failing to do so, open up an argument that says anyone else can take action against the system for any perceived failing of the system.
I think we have to go back to the Declaration of Independence for guidance. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The problem I keep coming back to, is that there remains a means of redress through elections. We are represented. It's just that the will of the people is not strong enough to overthrow the judiciary rulings that fail to protect the rights of the unborn children.
So overthowing government would not fix this, as the people's will has to change. Would a war against abortion doctors change the people's will? Probably not. And if not, then more abortion doctors would simply rise up to replace them. So what will change the will of the people?
Agreed 100%, though I have no sympathy for Tiller. I have negative sympathy, if that’s possible.
“And I wil lsay you also sidestepped the question if he was killed unjustly.”
Yes as distasteful as that is. At what point are we going to ignore the govt and mete out our own individual justice as we see fit. If we say we are against abortion because of Gods law then can we discard Gods law to meet out our own retribution? I don’t know the answer to that.
We are commanded to abide by our government. If our govt is not following Gods law it is our own fault.
This abortionist was an evil man who killed tens of thousands of babies, of that there is no doubt. The left has done an incredible job of turning people like that into heros. We, as a group, have allowed that to occur and to continue.
Could be blinded by fanaticism, but eyes wide open to the dismemberment and death of thousands...Legal does not mean right, It use to be legal to own slaves, that did not make it right...legal murder is no different than criminal murder..someones dead....
The one does not justify the other. Rule of law and all that...(oh, I forgot that the Constitution is just “a piece of paper”, right?) But more importantly, taunting his relatives is just beyond the pale, IMO. I hope for your sake that you will never experience the violent death of a close family member as was the case here. Dwell on that for a while please.
He better. Murder is murder.
Had this Dr. Tiller gone from hospital to hospital in a mad crazed rage pulling newborns out of their cribs jabbing needles into their brains and chopping off their heads, arms and legs and throwing the parts into the trash bin and Mr. Roeder visiting one of the hospitals happen to see the Dr’s evil deed and whips out a pistol and shoots him dead, would there be this discussion of whether the shooter is a murderer.....or a hero? Just askin’.
So we’re all doing nothing and it’s our fault Tiller was doing what he did, yet you say we’d be in the wrong to mete out the proper justice this baby murderer deserved. The one guy you’re against actually did do something to deal with this one specific problem, while all of us did nothing, and yet he’s condemned.
Would you not say he stopped a great evil from operating in this country, and continuing to operate (because Tiller had no intention to stop doing what he was doing)? The government may call what he did murder, but Tiller didn’t wasn’t killed without a just cause.
This is how messed up the government is and how wrapped up Christians are to believing we always have to respect and obey government all the time. Martin Luther hid from government when such lawful government (Holy Roman Empire) declared him an outlaw and put a price on his head. The guy whose castle he holed up in for about a year hid him from the authorities, was this wrong?
today we’re so messed up I can see we’re heading down the same road that the Christians in Nazi Germany were on, they were preached the ‘submmission to authority’ part of Paul out of context as well. The bottom line is you obey the government when possible, but if their laws make you violate your beliefs, or the laws are inherently unbiblical and unjust, you must ignore them. And also if you do you must be ready to face whatever consequences (like this man currently is facing). Now there’s no mandate to say we all have to go out and kill baby butchers, that it’s a moral obligation for all of us, but in this instance the guy believed stopping a clear moral evil that the government was doing nothing about (in fact encouraging) he would do something about. He’s taking the consequences. He will have a chance to make his case.
The bottom line is this. If Tiller was about to kill a 1 week old baby in front of you, you could use up to the same level of force (lethal) to stop him. Let’s say you do and he dies. You’re a hero. But instead he kills thousands of babies that are viable if they could be born, because you’re a person before you’re born, and this guy stops the threat. But because of arbitrary legal definitions and laws he’s not the good guy in this scenario. And you say we have to listen to government - that their law is higher than God’s law. It’s clear in both scenarios Tiller is committing murder. To execute a murderer who says he’s going to keep on doing his government-sanctioned murders is justice. Tiller had dozens of people over the years attempt to talk to him to stop doing what he was doing, it wasn’t like he didn’t have DECADES to repent and stop and avoid a grisly yet IMO unsurprising end. God’s word also says that he who spills innocent blood, that their blood shall be required of them. He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. His whole lifestyle revolved around him being the murderer of babies. Everything he bought, every gift he gave someone, every piece of clothing and every vehicle and house he had, was paid for with the blood of children he murdered.
I am sad he didn’t repent. I am sad that his family miss him. He was hardened though, he had every intention to continue. I am not said someone killed him. I am happy he is not around to murder any more children.
“This case raises the question of when should we give up on the rule of law and take matters into our own hands. “
Your thoughts mirror mine very well.
I could not vote to convict this man.
Even though I admit he may have been wrong.
It is a sinful world.
“i dont think it would be right for me to force my values onto others ...”
Yes, who are we do decide whether Scott Roeder is right or wrong?
I would not kill an abortionist but the murder victim(?) deserved exactly what he got, a late term abortion of himself...
I really love those who scream rule of law when it fits their political agenda.. Gee, I hope that some day some 5 members of the SC don't find that you might legally be killed like the Nazi's did to jews, gypsy's and any one else they didn't like.. Since that rule came from 5 people out of 300,000,000 and killed the states laws against abortion.
As far as the constitution goes, its a stretch to find abortion listed in the limits of the federal government. But those men that wrote the constitution could not conceive of such stupidity coming from 5 lawyers in black robes....lets face it, it was only 1 vote out of 300,000,000 that made that "law" and as far as I'm concerned one of the best things she did was retire from the court....Gee I wonder if you know enough about the SC to know which justice I am talking about...
Would you kill Hitler before he was able to kill off millions of people? What about Stalin? How about Pol Pot? Mao?
Yse Yes and yes and Yes. and Tiller. YES!
Simple fact: tiller the killer cannot murder innocent children any more.
Here in Texas it is a defense to murder to stop a murder. Deadly force is justified here in Texas to stop a life threatening crime. Sure is.
Amen brother .
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.