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.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; and unto God, what is God's.
But maybe that doesn't sound terribly helpful....
Well, there you go, from your ears to mine....
And if Hell freezes over...
I disagree. Every society has to have a moral compass, in which the overwhelming majority of the citizenry must agree, and If not there is only chaos.
While there has always been a minority of people who wish to make abortion legal in any form or for any reason, and at any time in the pregnancy; the majority of Americans ( as well as doctors) disagree vehemently.
Late term abortion has always been illegal, and yet this particular Doctor disregarded this law, and our judicial system allowed ( even facilitated) his ability to do so.
While I do not condone the man who chose to shoot this Doctor, I certainly do not condemn what he did as an act of Murder, as much an act of outrage at our legal system.
IF our legal system actually applied the law equally, then this Doctor would have been stopped long ago, and perhaps the violent act would have been averted.
But because we have legislators who consider their own personal interest above the good of the nation, their corruption of the system leads to justifiable outrage, and sometimes ends in acts such as these.
Perhaps two wrongs don't make a right. But when one wrong is committed, it's only human and natural to expect that some one will eventually react to it in like regard.
You are ALONE in your arguments, pretty much.
I would also say that you come off as a bit misogynistic, a bit anti-woman, a bit like the very WRONG stereotype of the left tries to use, against us.
There is no legal, logical, moral or historical reason why we should be compelled to treat the mothers who have illegal abortions harshly, with prison or with jail time.
Really? Explain to me then how it is you're going to make elective abortion illegal if the choice itself is morally justified....because there can be no moral neutrality for any of the parties involved, since we are talking about human life. It is by definition, a moral issue.
Yet you talk about making elective abortion illegal in post #151. Quite frankly I think you are the one who doesn't know what the hell they''re talking about.....
Go pound sand.
nice deconstruction of my words to suit your own ends...
Who is deserving of execution, and who is not.
The answer is we all are and Christ is not.
Well, that's helpful. Thanks for that tremendous insight regarding this issue...
Which commandment is that?
We will not make progress with angry, bitter, vindictive and judgmental attacks on women.
You can not bark out orders, in a free society, and expect everyone to follow you.
Public opinion has actually been very consistent, over time, where actual legislation is concerned.
Is it your goal to put women in prison?
Is it your goal to curb, restrict and reduce abortion?
Those two goals ARE mutually exclusive, if you look at the actual legislation that we have any prayer of getting enacted into law.
Medical doctors are licensed.
Nurses are licensed.
Clinics are licensed.
All must have some form of insurance.
All must obey the law, to avoid losing their licenses and to avoid lawsuits, and even to avoid criminal penalty.
All of this can be done WITHOUT criminal charges against women.
In fact, the women will be witnesses AGAINST the abortionist, in many cases.
Now, any crime carries with it the “conspiracy” component, but I would urge any prosecutor to use that option ONLY to get witnesses to testify.
It does not appear that you have much experience in professional licensing or in criminal justice or in history or in medicine.
Again, you have every right to your uniformed and misogynistic opinions.
Again, you have every right to your uniformed and misogynistic opinions.
And you think I'm a mouthpiece for the left.
Again, go pound sand....
With this Congress and President I agree.
The key question here should be: Our are tax dollars funding trolls like Stephenie, and why are newbie trolls allowed to vanity post in the first place?
Hmm... you two one and the same?
“Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?”
Because in the first case, the action is effective. In the second case, it isn’t.
In the first case, the law and the society affirm the action of the good citizen. The government is unlikely to offer protection to other mad doctors who will rampage through hospital nurseries. The society condemns the doctor and praises the hero who put down the mad doctor. Nothing in law or culture encourages or protects the next mad doctor. The concept of the legal protection of the born children in the nursery is not brought into disrepute by the actions of the hero gunman.
On the other hand, in the killing of the abortionist, there will be another to take his place. The dead abortionist is considered a martyr to his cause. The baby butcher who takes his place is lionized as a courageous hero. The government promises to enhance physical security for baby butchers everywhere. The society, the culture view the one who exterminated the baby butcher as an “extremist” who acted as a “vigilante,” who violated the law.
Remember that it isn’t illegal to kill the mad doctor - the defense of innocent life is an affirmative defense to charges of murder. However, because it IS legal for abortionists to murder unborn babies, it is ALSO ILLEGAL to exterminate abortionists to prevent them from killing again. Thus, the one who exterminated the abortionist, unlike the hero in the nursery, has committed, legally, some act of illegal, legally-unjustified homicide.
The actions of the abortionist-exterminator thus are feckless, and socially and culturally, do harm. He stops very few, if any, further murders of unborn babies. His actions bring into disrepute the concept that unborn children should be protected in law. And lastly, he delays the day when unborn children will finally be protected in law.
He was 67. That is pretty old, is it not?
The difference is no one is attempting to justify the other murders that took place on that day as far as I know. And I agree he is not worth the print. I couldn't care less about Tiller or Roeder.
Tiller was an evil man who did a bad, but legal, thing.
Roeder is an idiotic extremist stooge who is going to die in jail.
The point is simply that you absolutely cannot allow anyone to do what Roeder did. It is too slippery a slope: saying it is okay to knock off people doing legal things you personally do not approve of.
No, it is not.
At that age, you are barely eligible for full Social Security benefits.
At that age, you have a very good chance of living past age 90. In fact, half the people that age will not live to age 87 and half will live longer than age 87.
20 more years!
You gotta shake lose of the labia,
if you wanna chance to LIVE.
Until then, momma ain’t got your back, BABY!
Momma ain’t got yo’ back
Momma ain’t got yo’ back
It was warm inside
And then I tried to HIDE
Momma ain’t got my BACK!
And they seraphim say:
(I want my baby back baby back baby back . . .)
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.