Replies

“I think it is wrong to call Roeder a “Terrorist” (the “T” word)...Roeder was not a terrorist, he was an assassin. There is a monumental difference. What he did was not a terrorist act, it was an assassination. No collateral damage was anticipated or intended and none occurred. The purpose was not to terrorize anyone. It would appear that it was to end a practice that the Governor of the State of Kansas had categorically refused to end...Frankly Kathleen Sebelius bears most of the responsibility for this incident. She took blood money from Tiller in exchange for giving him freedom from prosecution for illegally killing viable human fetuses.”
****************
I agree with the part about Sebelius - I also like wmfights take on how to address the pro-abort crowd on this matter. ‘Why did you create him?’, he said. That said, the pro-life movement and we pro-lifers *must* know where we stand on this. As much as you can say that this does not harm the movement, assassinating a handful of 3rd trimester abortionists does not stop the bulk of abortions - so in what way does it really advance the movement - vs. advancing one specific item (no more late term abortions in Wichita)? What is next P-Marlowe - shall we advocate the full scale “assassination program” to target all 2nd Trimester abotionists? Why or why not? Will that help our cause, do you suppose?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to “Take the law into their own hands”.
*******************

We can talk philosophically/Biblically about this (Acts 5:29 - “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’”....Gamaliel added later in that account: “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5:38b, 39)

- but have we arrived at such a place? I'll ask you the question I just asked Betty Boop - have we come to a place where we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government?

To some degree, I'm trying to understand the level of support we have for violence, in the cause of defending innocent lives, and what our current understanding and parameters are.

At this point - I support what the Patriots did in 1775 (which involved killing representatives of the British crown (the British army)) - while I don't support Roeder’s act, because no one can clearly explain to me how this helps reduce the mass of abortions, nor helps the pro-life movement generally, and it doesn't have the appropriate pro-life leadership and general support; as such it fails to pass the test of a legitimate act of moral protest that I, or most people in the pro-life movement, nor most Americans can support - despite your interesting notion that most Americans may agree that ‘killing babies is wrong.’

If those advocating violence against abortionists (please, I'm not being specific to people on the board unless it somehow applies to you), or against tyrannical government in general (?), can present their case and persuade a significant portion of Americans to rise up - then we'd have some kind of parallel with the 1775 Patriots. Until then we have an isolated act of violence, which I and most pro-lifers do not support as being helpful.

Thank you for your well thought and and considered reply.

FWIW I have NEVER advocated violence against abortion providers. NEVER. But I have on numerous occasions stated without hesitation my firm belief that Abortion is Murder and that people like Tiller are the worst sort of criminals. So when I express the thought that Abortion is Murder, I have to accept the consequences of my words and I would be the ultimate hypocrite if after calling Abortion murder, I turned around and soundly condemned someone who took those words to heart and sacrificed his own liberty to put an end to a holocaust.

FWIW, I have tried many times and I have never been able to come up with a Biblical justification for the American Revolution. Our founding fathers were biblically under the admonition of Paul to obey those who were in authority over them because the powers that were, were ordained of God. But then every single nation was founded by people who had rebelled or gone to war against other nations to secure their own power.

That being said, I do believe with all my heart that the American Revolution was fully ordained by God and that it was God's assertive will that the United States of America would be founded by the Godly men who acted on slim, if any, biblical grounds to rebel against a tyrannical government and to form a new union which, would ultimately promise to "Secure the blessings of liberty.... to our posterity."

Unfortunately that promise has been broken. Because that promise was broken, do we, as a people now have the right and duty to do all in our power to restore those promises? From a biblical viewpoint, I'd be inclined to say no and to accept the lot that God has dealt us. From a philosophical viewpoint, I would not be willing to lie down while the blessings of Liberty are willy nilly stripped from our posterity.

It is a difficult question.

But when it comes down to brass tacks, the only thing that can be said is:

There have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.

Who do we have to thank for that? If we thank God, then we would have to thank Roeder. Think about that one for a minute.

For me, all I can say is "Thank God there have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09."

You may draw any other inference from that statement that you want.