Why Is Killing Abortionists Wrong?

Reason ^ | June 1, 2009 | Jacob Sullum

[Nosterrex]

Instead of giving an answer, you insult. That is what happens when someone cannot defend his position.

[Marie2]

“As long as the abomination of Roe v. Wade stands, the wound inflicted by SCOTUS will never heal and there will be supperations of violence from time to time.”

Well stated. I agree with you completely.

[Melas]

How many unarmed men did Patrick Henry gun down? If you think shooting the unarmed is anything but cowardly, you’ll never get it.

[Melas]

Arguments like yours lack an important philosophical underpinning. Do you know why ex-post-facto laws were constitutionally forbidden? I do, and it applies here.

You as an individual have the right to understand the consequences of your actions beforehand, before you commit yourself to any act. It is morally wrong for the state to deprive you of that informed consent, and it is morally wrong for the individual to deprive another individual of that.

Roeder knew in advance that his actions were illegal and the outcome should he break that most sacred of laws. Tiller, monster or man, it matters not, did not act outside of the law. Had he, and the state’s remedy was execution, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

We all the run the risk of being gunned down by a madman. It could be argued that given Tiller’s ugly profession, he attracted more madmen willing to act unlawfully, but that’s not really informed consent.

I’m afraid that we’re going to have to find a harsh way to deal with the Roeders of this country. Harsh enough that others like them won’t dare act.

The Tillers don’t scare me nearly as much, as they’ll respect the law and cease and desist should abortion be legally proscribed. A monster who acts within the law doesn’t scare me nearly as much as a monster who doesn’t care.

[BuddhaBrown]

"...child support laws already recognize conception as the beginning of life."

Interesting concept.

But, while it points out the inconsistent and illogical nature of current law, I doubt such a case would be accepted by the supremes as a challenge to Roe in the same way as would a state or federal definition of the beginning of life.

[trumandogz]

And also, why is no one also suggesting that we kill the woman who chose, paid for and went through with the abortion? Or the husband who supported the action?

It is my view as I have posted on other threads, that once Roe is overturned and states move to criminalize abortion, that both the doctor who performs an an abortion, the woman who have an abortion and all that conspire in the abortion must be charged with Capital Murder.

Tho above being is the only rational outcome of making abortion illegal since, if today a doctor and a woman conspired to murder her two year old child and followed through on the act, both parties would be charged with Capital Murder.

Personally, I see no difference between the murder of a two year old child and a child at two months gestation. So, therefore, the punishment for the murder of either should carry the same punishment.

[fr_freak]

Arguments like yours lack an important philosophical underpinning. Do you know why ex-post-facto laws were constitutionally forbidden? I do, and it applies here.

Ex post facto is irrelevant here. It was not the state who executed him. What your argument assumes is that the state is still acting on behalf of, and at the will of, the people. However, it is not. Roe vs. Wade was a judicial fiat which removed the Constitutional right of the states to determine their own legalities on the matter of abortion. Americans should have revolted right then. They did not, and the Left was further encouraged to use the courts as a means to usurp power they are specifically forbidden to have.

Our government is broken in the sense that there is no longer a system of checks and balances in our federal government, nor is there a federal system. What we have, effectively, is a one-party system in place in which dictates from the party central are carried out down to the municipal level. In other words, the Democrats control the Congress, the executive branch, and, largely, the judicial branch. When the powers that be in the Party dictate that abortion shall be legal everywhere, all three branches act to carry out that dictate, using whatever unconstitutional shenanigans they can to make it happen. Likewise, any state or local governments which are controlled by the Democrats also act to carry out these dictates, although it is really unnecessary for them to want to do so because the federal government has usurped the domain of state and local governments in that the federal courts and the federal Congress now make proclamations and laws which control local behaviors, e.g. prayer in schools, legality of abortion, whether a state can forbid benefits to illegals (prop 187 in CA), etc. Effectively, we no longer have a system of federalism - we have a ruling national party.

In that environment, Americans need to understand that waiting for the government on ANY level to act in a way that reflects the will of the people is pointless. The local governments bow to the will of the federal government, and the federal government bows to the will of the party in charge, currently the Democrats. Therefore, using the argument that only government-sanctioned justice is legitimate is dead wrong. When the federal government made national law by fiat, it gave up its legitimacy. The people must now enforce their will themselves or it will not be enforced.

[fatima]

Hello .God I knew I should have not read through this thread.hinckley buzzard your words are true but in truth he was a coward if he stood up for the true Cross of Christ.

[fatima]

Don’t include me with our.F-our if people die.Never include me in your our.

[Marie2]

“Don’t include me with our.F-our if people die.Never include me in your our.”

What on earth does that mean?

[ml/nj]

Slavery is hardly the worst of all human conditions. Despite the image created by victors in the "War between the States" who needed some justification for the havoc and destruction they brought upon the southern states, the slaves lived and loved. They were cared for by their owners, maybe only the way horse owners care for their horses; some well and not some not as well, but generally they were cared for. When the slaves were too young or too old, they were cared for. (Read Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States for incidental glimpses by a British soldier as he traveled through the South.)

The people in Auschwitz &c. could only wish they were Southern slaves.

Aborted babies get no wishes at all.

ML/NJ

[wtc911]

Slavery’s not so bad because there’s no gas chamber? Filed under “Unbelievably twisted rationalization”.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Yeah, no kidding. That type of brilliance sure drives home why the victors were the victors, and the losers losers.

[ml/nj]

Slavery’s not so bad because there’s no gas chamber? Filed under “Unbelievably twisted rationalization”.

I wonder what you think of Aristotle (if you think at all). Do you think Aristotle was given to “Unbelievably twisted rationalizations”?

"Not so bad" always depends upon compared to what.

ML/NJ

[fatima]

Made sense to me last night:)Hey Marie are you going to Washington?

[wtc911]

Comparing yourself to Aristotle? As a way to explain away your rationalization for slavery? We all pale in your brilliance.

[Ancesthntr]

In the absence of justice we will driven to this point. The reason the left attacked our justice system is to pit us at each others throats. Absent correction they will be successful. At the present I see no correction.

1) You can only be driven somewhere if you allow it. The principle of abiding by the law, and working to change it where you don't like it, must be adhered to or we go to Mad Max in a short time.

2) "The reason the Left attacked our judicial system..." Well, they didn't attack it, they USED it - what they attacked (and still are attacking) is not merely the traditional interpretation of the law, but the very manner in which the law is interpreted (i.e. the "living" Constitution, which according to them means whatever 5 people in black robes says it does at any point in time.

3) I agree that absent correction they will win. Correction will occur, but from a different direction - the economy. It is such a disaster (U6, the traditional measure of unemployment, is at about 16% and rising), that by late summer or early fall Obama will be blamed. Not only has nothing he's tried actually worked, it has done the opposite (which any decent economist or historian could have told you). This will kill the Dems in '10, effectively paralyzing DC (always a good thing, in my book), and forcing any new judicial nominees to actually be closer to the middle of the road.

[ml/nj]

We all pale in your brilliance.

Well you certainly do, and you also seem to have some difficulty with the English language. I made no comparison between myself and Aristotle. I merely cited him, asking whether you thought he was similarly was given to “Unbelievably twisted rationalizations."

Read The Politics, Pal, and get back to me.

ML/NJ

[wtc911]

Gee, if only we were all as smart as you seem to think you are....then we’d know that slavery was a cakewalk, after all, there are some folks who had it worse. Now if we can only get those whining Holocaust survivors to shut up and realize how good they had it...I mean, there are people who had it worse, like child victims of sex-murder.

[BibChr]

Um how about: for the same reason killing babies is wrong?