Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court
Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

Posted on 01/28/2010 12:16:12 PM PST by Ben Mugged

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 421 next last
To: Ben Mugged

I am 100% pro life, and if it were law (abortion were illigal and Doctors who performed them could be prosecuted): I would, however if I were on the Jury this guy would be guilty, we CAN NOT stand up for life, and then say ‘the ends justify the means’ and that (Dr -I say that loosly) Tiller’s life is worth less than the Tens of Thousands of Babies he murdered while alive!~ Just my 2, J.S.


101 posted on 01/28/2010 1:29:18 PM PST by JSDude1 (www.wethepeopleindiana.org (Tea Party Member-Proud), www.travishankins.com (R- IN 09 2010!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit - but, the side that places the responsibility of dispensing that justice in manner fully in accordance with the principles of due process and Constitutional rights.

One could make a very strong argument, under the claims of the Declaration, that our form of government is no longer fit to exist. It has utterly failed its fundamental purpose.

The rule of law which you uphold has likewise failed. It has reneged its duty and thus abdicated its authority. All that remains is to appeal to superior authority for direction. (This is why I say Roe was a seed of anarchy.)

If that superior authority is "taking matters into our own hands and dispensing judgment as we see fit", then more's the blame on our government's shoulders and more's the blood on their hands! For, this is not about "disagreements". This is about the barbaric butchering of babies.

Any "LAW" that permits that is a law without any force except tyrannical fear. And all such "LAW" is legitimately subject to resistance by equal force.

If a murderous regime cannot be reasoned with, it's a fit target for rebellion. (That, in my humble opinion, is the Declaration in a nutshell.)
102 posted on 01/28/2010 1:31:09 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Invincibly Ignorant
German was a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of law except those dictated by the Fuhrer. We are a representative republic, with laws written by for and of the people.

Can you point to one example of a law where the people actually voted to uphold one abortion statute?

According to the Constitution, people do not vote for the USSC judiciary. We vote for Congressional reps to make laws. According to the Constitution the judiciary is not to make law. How then is Roe v. Wade is "law"?

Just curious, would you prosecute someone who killed jailers in a prison riot, whose intent in killing the jailers was to free Christians who were to be fed to the lions?

FReegards!


103 posted on 01/28/2010 1:31:14 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

Unfortunately “The sumbitch had it coming” defense doesn’t work very well.


104 posted on 01/28/2010 1:33:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azcap

The law has wiggle room.

* * * * * * *

If the past is anything to go by, juries are not kind to these doctor shooters. Not one has gotten off. They’re been punished pretty harshly.


105 posted on 01/28/2010 1:34:02 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

This guy committed murder and should be punished for it. But I have real difficulty saying his action wasn’t justifiable. I’d put him in the same category of someone who took out a death camp commandant.


106 posted on 01/28/2010 1:35:32 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
"How then is Roe v. Wade is "law"?"

If you are so removed from reality that you don't understand how that Supreme Court decision, or any Supreme Court decision is law, I can't help you. It would require a far longer post than I'm willing to write. I suggest you enroll in a local adult education civics class, because you've got a real project ahead of you.

107 posted on 01/28/2010 1:36:31 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; All

I'll give you a hint. I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit

Oh really?

What would you do if you had the chance in the 1920s?

Hitler_w_youngmen


108 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:01 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dila813; Ben Mugged
That said, the state will impose it’s will through it’s laws.

Oh really. And under the mercies of which dictatorship have you chosen to live?

FReegards!


109 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:07 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats.

We are also not a nation of legalists.

And what does theocracy have to do with a man being driven to kill by the idea of innocent babies being *legally* dismembered and tossed in a dumpster?

The theocrats aren't the problem here. The law is.
110 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:40 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

He needed killin’. probably won’t hold up either.


111 posted on 01/28/2010 1:38:00 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CaribouCrossing
Not necessarily true. If they can establish that he had appointments scheduled to perform late term abortions during that week and that Tiller had in the past performed late term abortions , easy enough, than they MAY be able to establish immanent danger of death of a third party.

Like I said, I doubt they will be able to get an acquittal, but I am more than certain that at least one, and probably several of the jurors would like to acquit. Jury nullification is certainly not out of the question. A hung jury is absolutely a good chance.

112 posted on 01/28/2010 1:38:50 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
.
"The prosecution wouldn't want me on this jury."

Me either, I'd give the guy a medal for lifesaving!
.

113 posted on 01/28/2010 1:39:45 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Again, I am Pro Life.

LOL. You are a parody of a pro-lifer. You aren't one, but you do play one on FR.
114 posted on 01/28/2010 1:40:12 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I'll give you a hint. I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit - but, the side that places the responsibility of dispensing that justice in manner fully in accordance with the principles of due process and Constitutional rights.

no matter what the law is?

115 posted on 01/28/2010 1:40:23 PM PST by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
Sounds like a good argument...for the defense at Nuremberg.

Precisely the opposite. It would be the defense mounted by someone on trial for killing Dr. Mengele.
116 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:09 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Are we dipping into the past now to make our point? If that’s the case, I can see some of these moral relativist Freepers saying, “Nothing wrong with slavery if it makes Tiller a slave,” or “Nothing wrong with crematoriums if Tiller’s in one of them!”


117 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:17 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I’d put him in the same category of someone who took out a death camp commandant.

That is the unfortunate position we're put in by death camp commandants - and by the "LAW" that enables them.

I'm not unsympathetic with those who appeal to the rule of law. It's a wonderful political advancement - right up to the point at which it fails to do its job. I'm arguing that viz. babies' lives, it has utterly and completely failed. And that being the case, (with all respect to my opponents here) our blind faith in it is foolish.
118 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:26 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Whose God are you talking about?

Whose God were our forefathers speaking of when they wrote "endowed by the Creator" into the documents upon which our laws are based?

119 posted on 01/28/2010 1:42:28 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; trumandogz
> Again, I am Pro Life.

LOL. You are a parody of a pro-lifer. You aren't one, but you do play one on FR.

So, it's your position that one is not truly pro-life unless he supports murder?

Is that your position?

120 posted on 01/28/2010 1:43:10 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 421 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson