Skip to comments.Statement on the Death of George Tiller
Posted on 06/07/2009 11:29:06 AM PDT by September
After reading numerous Statements on the Death of George Tiller from high profile pro-life leaders which said we must strongly condemn such senseless acts of violence, killing is never the answer, and anyone who is truly pro-life will be saddened by Dr. Tillers death I had to ask myself one question.
If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence? That would be unthinkable. He would be extolled as brave American hero who saved babies from a deranged mass murderer.
However after the shooting of Dr. Tiller Ive learned most people, even those who are pro-life, do not speak well of individuals who stop abortion doctors with deadly force, even though these doctors are serial child killers.
Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?
The best I understand it is the children abortionists kill are the "undesirables" in our society, just like the Jews were in Hitlers Germany. Human beings who are unwanted, dehumanized, and stripped of civil rights. Second, people do not speak well of someone who uses deadly force to stop an abortionist because it is legal for a doctor to kill these children, just like it was legal to kill Jews.
Although it was legal to kill Jews in Hitler's Germany it was not right, and the Nazis were murderers even though their laws vindicated them. Importantly, the doctors in the death camps were murderers not merely because a Tribunal said so, those doctors were murders because they committed widespread inhumane atrocities, barbaric crimes against humanity, and systematic state-sponsored extermination of millions of people.
Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. In the name of civility and in an effort to save children from mass murder at the hands of an abortion doctor I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.
Let us pray abortion will also be criminalized as the Holocaust is.
Wow, I had never thought of it in terms like that. Perhaps I should.
Becasue we have laws or we have anarchy. Then you might not like who the other guy decides needs killing.
In order to get significant restrictions on abortion again (which would almost certainly need a constitutional amendment) an amnesty would be a virtual political necessity, and the new law would have to go very easy on the mothers.
Yeah, another person attempting to justify murder.
Welcome to FR.
Thank you Judy Pollock.
This has not been done, in the past, primarily because the prolife “purists” do not accept a “states rights” solution.
A Constitutional Amendment is politically impossible, but the purists don't understand how to fight this battle.
Being a Christian, forgiving sort of guy, I might be willing to forgive both Tiller and Roeder 1 (one) murder each. That still leaves Tiller 49,999 short it seems to me...
BTW - my forgiveness means squat. God will deal with both of them I’m sure.
Murder is a strong word, with moral implications as well as legal.
Tiller committed murder, 60,000 times.
While the person who shot Tiller did break the law, and should be prosecuted, I am not sure that it was murder.
Killing is not always murder.
We live in a society where half the population finds killing of children in the womb tolerable or acceptable, and the majority of its elite even find it desirable. I think a better analogy would be if you happened upon a cannibalistic society. Would it be better to gun down all those murderous savages, or turn them to a more civilized way of thinking?
Yeah, it was murder. Shooting an unarmed and unsuspecting elderly man is murder.
We have the rule of law in this country, and you cannot go murdering people doing legal things and with no trail and no sentencing.
If a Personhood act was passed by Congress and signed by the President, the unborn would be recognized as persons with the Constitutional right to life, and abortion would then be illegal.
The only beings that should get to decide “who gets killed” are God, and the intended victim of a would-be heinous criminal (murderer, rapist, and such). This is why guns are so handy, just like fire extingushers-!
The evil has metastasized enough that, over a decade ago, a conference of state supreme courts agreed that it would carry on Roe v. Wade if Congress did something like that. State constitutional amendments would then be needed.
It’s because the pro-life movement is no different, fundamentally, from the pro-choice movement; it believes a woman has a right to choose. We can persuade a woman not to make that choice, we can console and help her with healing after she’s made that choice, but we can’t obstruct her from making that choice. That’s her “right” and it’s protected by law. If that weren’t true, and pro-lifers really believed their own rhetoric, they would be blockading every abortion clinic in the country.
Well said! I discovered during this “episode” that I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.
Absolutley. Those people are called "liberal Democrats."
I would never murder anyone, but I cannot say I am not glad to see Tiller the Killer dead.
What goes around comes around.
He killed thousands and lived high on the hog because of a pile of human fetus’s left in his wake.
Sorry, Judy, it’s a little thing called the law. Currently his act constitutes at most vigilantism, but it doesn’t rise to outright justifiable homicide.
In the eyes of God, maybe, right now, the law interprets his act as illegal.
BTW, Kansas has horrible abortion laws, the most liberal and least restrictive in the country.
Whenever we try to restrict abortion, we have to fight the “purist” prolifers who want an outright ban but support almost nothing else, and we ALSO have to fight the liars on the pro death side who claim that almost ANY restriction would go against Roe v. Wade or Doe V. Bolton.
Getting rid of those court cases, as an excuse, would really move the ball forward.
Which includes the concept of:
“innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” -—
Without knowing the shooters state of mind, or motives, you can not call it murder, prior to conviction on that charge, and be within the law, yourself, right?
“turn them to a more civilized way of thinking?”
“I am not sure that it was murder.”
I’m sure under the law it was murder. However this is the same “law” that makes butchering babies legal.
IMHO, we have abortion because some races of babies have monetary value. Sad, but nobody (almost) wants babies of color or disabled babies, while people line up for healthy white babies at $40K a pop.
Tiller was NOT “elderly” so why claim that he was?
He was still a practicing “doctor” of death.
If he was old enough to kill others, under the law, do not try to gin up sympathy for him by calling him “elderly” it does not wash.
I think people also forget that Americans believe in a higher law greater than man. The revolution was “illegal” too, but that didn’t make our Founding Fathers any less “civilized.”
Tiller stayed in business because he had an abundance of Liberals who were willing to seek him out and pay for his services. In certain ways, he was like a prostitute. He was an opportunist with no moral boundaries that was willing to get rich on the money of Liberals.
There will always be people like Tiller in society as long as there are a customer base willing to pay the price for the service. Our opinions do not count.
We are a nation of laws and we must work within the system, even if it takes a hundred years to change a bad law. We should never, never ever ever resort to taking a life.
We should remember the words from the bible, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” and we should be meek like the Christians who quietly prayed while they were eaten by lions in the Colosseum, or meek like Dr. Martin Luther King and the marchers of the civil rights movement.
Taking the law into one’s own hands accomplishes nothing. It doesn’t help your cause. It only gives the pro-abortion crowd ammunition to use against you. Like they have been using this abortion dr.s murder.
ONLY if that law stated that the Supreme Court, and the lower courts, had NO jurisdiction over the matter.
And, politically, this is probably not the right stand to take, in that the public does tend to support abortion in the “tough cases” and it is perfectly moral to address political reality, in the law.
That is best done at the state level.
More to the point, we should avoid federal murder charges, and let the states deal with regulation of doctors and the prosecution of illegal abortions.
We do that by simply telling the Fed courts to butt out, and the we craft our own laws, at the State level, the way our founders intended.
Is an "unarmed and unsuspecting elderly man" more or less entitled to life than the 60,000 unsuspecting human beings whose lives were snuffed out by George Tiller?
Which killing or killing(s) offends you less?
Lets teach fetuses how to shoot then!
*Yes, I know all the tut-tutters will say that what Tiller did isn't technically murder, but they'll have to try that argument on somebody else. I'm not listening.
You are absurd.
Many of the founders thought slavery was a horrible evil, but they realized that they did not have the power to stop slavery, at our founding, and instead put the new nation on a path that would, eventually, bring the matter to a head.
Recognizing reality, and trying to work within the law, does not make any of us accomplices to the evil involved.
I am “pro choice” on the question of violence.
I would not shoot an abortionist.
God does not want me to shoot abortionists, I am pretty sure.
However, I choose to leave that decision between God and other citizens.
And, until the law is changed, those who do shoot abortionists should be prosecuted.
I am hopeful that the courts go easy on them.
There is a great gap between the rule of law and the rule of “right”.
I have pondered the same question. If one was to stop with lethal force if required, a person from harming a baby, it would be “right” and probably lawful. On the other hand, Dr. Tiller “performing medical procedures” (killing unborn humans at the mothers/parents request)is not right, but it is lawful.
Killing Tiller because he performs abortions (murder if you will) is not legal. Is it “right” based on the first scenario?
The guy who decided to stop Tiller had to make that choice on his own, and live with consequences of an “unlawful” act.
The unborn are the only ones w/o a personal voice or choice. What would they be saying if we could ask them?
Seems we have fallen under the rule of man, rather than the rule of law.
God Help us.
He reportedly charged a pretty penny, but did he make “exceptions” for “hardship cases”? As a “good liberal” with a “cause” one wonders if he went “pro bono” every once in a while.
However, at our founding, as Mark Levin makes clear in his book, the founders made the slave trade illegal and formed a system of government that, eventually, outlawed the practice.
The founders who had anti slavery feelings worked within the frame work of the new government to make slavery less and less profitable and less powerful.
In fact, the idea that a Black man was only counted as 3/5 “human” for census purposes helped keep the number of Southern proslavery members of Congress at a minimum.
Counter intuitive, perhaps, but that is the truth.
There’s a big difference between a doctor who went “mad” and started killing and Mr Tiller.Sudden “madness” can,I believe,be biological in nature and,thus,be witnessed with sadness rather than anger or contempt.Mr Tiller,OTOH,wasn’t “mad”.He was simply a psychopath,utterly devoid of conscience.A lot like Mao...Stalin...Pol Pot...Hitler.I do not shed a single tear at the passing of Mr Tiller.I only regret that it was a bullet,rather than a lightening bolt,a flesh eating bacteria,or a particularly ugly and painful form of cancer,that did him in.
NO, he did not.
Tiller never worked for free.
Who says babies of color are the primary victims of abortion?
I know Sangerism (eugenics) is focused at destroying minoroties (pure racism and hatred of the worst sort, but I am not sure it works out that way with abortion rates.
Note that SecState Clinton smiled and gladly accepted the Sanger award for some sort of womanly achievement...).
I’d love to see the stats (attributed to a researcher of course)
Wasn’t the Slave Trade made illegal in the U.S. in 1807?
The defeat of the Brittish was the first item on the agenda.
Yes, but still by our founders.
Much happened between 1776, the Declaration, the war of 1812 and the Constitution.
However, it was pretty much the same founders involved, in different ways.
My thought was that it was a good trade, giving up ones life to stop that man from continuing to murder babies. If I were on the jury, and was an honest judge, I would have to say “guilty” if he was the triggerman. But at the same time, I would stand and salute him to the hangman’s rope. That man needed killing.
Laws written by dictators and tyrants (or judges) are usually asinine..
It’s out there and you can find it easily if you care to. For starters though, well over half (perhaps 60%) of the abortions are from a group that makes up only 12 or 13 percent of our population...