Posted on 01/29/2010 9:49:10 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
WICHITA, Kan. — A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Hmmm, you bring up a good point. I think the idea would be that it is ok to commit a “lesser” crime to help stop a larger crime...
By law, it is not and will not be in the case of these women. Tiller was justly convicted of murder as the laws are. That does not take away the fact that the law legalizing abortion is illegal in it’s self. Indeed, the fact that Roeder knew he would be prosecuted and made an example of is part of what makes him a hero. The fact that for Roeder the moral issue outweighed the “legal” issue is a testament to his goodness, not badness. If you think about it, he acted out of love and compassion.
Finally, justification of an act does not mean one will not be prosecuted for breaking a law...it just doesn’t work that way. If, I were speeding to bring my injured wife to the hospital and a cop wanted to give me a speeding and/or reckless driving ticket, I would be found guilty. I would still be justified in rushing to the hospital and understand, grudgingly...that I must pay the fine. I think the question then begs to be asked...Roeder understood all this and still acted, he knew he would be imprisoned and perhaps executed or life would be the result. But, he decided the sacrifice of his life was a “fair” trade for the lives of the innocent children that would be saved by killing Tiller. I doubt if he thought the entire clinic would close. That must have made him quite happy and reification for him that he did the right thing.
Yes, I understand that and that is why I did not include the guy who filled toe pothole on the road that the woman drove to in order to get the the pharmacy.
What about the politicians and judges who over the years have enabled not only abortion via enacting and upholding Roe, but those who have directed the FDA to approve the Abortion Pill and those who have voted for or signed legislation for the funding of Planned Parenthood? Would Roeder have been justified in killing these people?
I wonder why no jury member considered it a Justifiable Homicide.
* * * * * * *
Probably for the same reason NO jury ever let a doctor-killer off. It’s not justifiable homicide.
I still don't believe in murder, and I know it is against God's laws.
If Scott is a believer, then he needs to ask forgiveness for his sin. And a sinful human being's murder of a man, no matter how guilty, is not even remotely comparable to the sinless' Jesus' turning over the tables because the money changers were defiling the temple. There is no analogy there.
btw, it's "Caesar" and that passage was about taxes. Hope you pay yours.
...liberals to claim all conservatives are nuts.
* * * * * * *
They’re a lot better at it than we are. Look how much mileage they can get out of a doctor shooting, while prolifers can’t work up the outrage over abortion that it merits.
Scott is a believer and is doing life...
Rather, I meant the libs are a lot better at painting doctor- shootings as an outrage and milk it for better results, than conservatives and prolifers do with abortion itself.
Disgusted as I am by these sickening pro-Roeder comments I can see the “logic” behind them. They’re born out of sheer frustration.
Scott is doing life.
* * * * * * *
Well, Scott can be the new fresh meat in the Kansas state pen, they’re probably tired of BTK’s a$$ by now. And maybe other “zealots” will get the message that 1st degree murder is a sh*tty pro-life tactic.
“Disgusted as I am by these sickening pro-Roeder comments I can see the “logic” behind them. “
Actually there is no logic to their argument.
If their arguments were logical and consistent they would also advocate the killing a first trimester abortionists, doctors who prescribe abortion pills, pharmacists who dispense abortion pills, doctors who implant IUD’s and the women who have abortions, take abortion pills or have IUD’s.
An argument must be consistent to be logical.
“Well, Scott can be the new fresh meat in the Kansas state pen, they’re probably tired of BTK’s a$$ by now. And maybe other “zealots” will get the message that 1st degree murder is a sh*tty pro-life tactic.”
Spot on.
One of the most accurate posts I have ever read on FR.
And when you press the issue of consistency, they change the subject or start on the ad hominems.
IF it is morally acceptable to murder Dr. Tiller, then it must logically be acceptable to murder all abortionists, and those you have listed, including the mothers.
The argument that 1st degree murder is a "pro-life" action is completely unsustainable.
And if Jesus was with the doctor when he was killing a Baby he would not do nothing.
And if Jesus was with the doctor when he was killing a Baby he would not do nothing.
Notice how pseudo prolifers collapse into the gutter sputtering and stammering.
“Yes, I understand that and that is why I did not include the guy who filled toe pothole on the road that the woman drove to in order to get the the pharmacy.”
The problem with your example is you stated in each that all three conspired to murder a child...that is a crime.
Now, let’s talk about justification. I am thinking that you are not looking for a definitive answer that is generically sound. You want to know my personal belief on what would be justified or not. But, let me ask you...was Roeder justified (doesn’t mean innocent by our nations laws) in stopping a mass killer of babies? If not, what moral basis would you provide for saving lives?
I think that in the case of Roeder killing an abortionist who performed tens of thousands of abortions, there is justification. I do not think that means all who are involved one way or another should be killed. In your question regarding judges, no I do not think one would be justified in killing one because they upheld the nations law, that is what they are supposed to do. They are at arms length from the actual act of killing babies. But, I do believe that a judge would be morally correct in not accepting a case which would involve upholding the killing of babies.
Hope that clarifies for you...now, if you wish to continue answer my question above...
There you go again...just get so frustrated with your inability to contain yourself you plop down into the gutter with ad hominems - the mark of an argument that cannot be sustained.
You are a loser! Just like your boy Dubya.
We are fallible human beings, and we need to leave the "vengeance" up to Him.
You clearly cannot control yourself, and I don't have the time nor the inclination to deal with your throwing whatever you have in your hand at the wall and hoping something sticks.
(btw, none of this is about President Bush. Try to focus).
wwjd
ANSWER THE QUESTION
And if Jesus was with the doctor when he was killing a Baby he would not do nothing.
WWJD?
ANSWER THE QUESTION
And if Jesus was with the doctor when he was killing a Baby he would not do nothing.
WWJD?
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.