[fr_freak]

What people need to remember is that every single law in this land, from the Constitution to the most minor municipal statute, is worthless without men willing to enforce it. For regular laws, we have entire government organizations willing to enforce the law, but what do we have to enforce the the Constitution or any other law when the government itself disobeys or ignores them? The Founders intended for the ultimate power to rest with the people, and when the government failed to do its job or when it attempted to usurp power, the people were the ultimate enforcers. So, the argument that the common man, in this country, should cede all of his moral authority to the state is decidedly incorrect.

In the old days in this country, someone like Tiller would have ended up swinging from a tree in short order if the authorities failed to stop him. However, back then, the authorities more closely reflected their constituencies. Now, they do not. The common American cannot count on the authorities, even the local ones, to reflect any community values at all. Dictates come down from D.C., and a national parties dictate to local politicians what values they will uphold. Our system is broken.

Tiller, a long time ago, should have been afraid to continue his barbaric practice anywhere for fear of the wrath of the local populace. Instead, Americans have abdicated their right and responsibility to defend themselves to government, and now use the fact that government doesn't support them as an excuse not to act. If you are waiting for the government to step in and defend what is right and do what is right, you will be waiting for eternity.

[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.