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.
Wow, I had never thought of it in terms like that. Perhaps I should.
Becasue we have laws or we have anarchy. Then you might not like who the other guy decides needs killing.
In order to get significant restrictions on abortion again (which would almost certainly need a constitutional amendment) an amnesty would be a virtual political necessity, and the new law would have to go very easy on the mothers.
Yeah, another person attempting to justify murder.
Welcome to FR.
Thank you Judy Pollock.
This has not been done, in the past, primarily because the prolife “purists” do not accept a “states rights” solution.
A Constitutional Amendment is politically impossible, but the purists don't understand how to fight this battle.
Being a Christian, forgiving sort of guy, I might be willing to forgive both Tiller and Roeder 1 (one) murder each. That still leaves Tiller 49,999 short it seems to me...
BTW - my forgiveness means squat. God will deal with both of them I’m sure.
Murder is a strong word, with moral implications as well as legal.
Tiller committed murder, 60,000 times.
While the person who shot Tiller did break the law, and should be prosecuted, I am not sure that it was murder.
Killing is not always murder.
We live in a society where half the population finds killing of children in the womb tolerable or acceptable, and the majority of its elite even find it desirable. I think a better analogy would be if you happened upon a cannibalistic society. Would it be better to gun down all those murderous savages, or turn them to a more civilized way of thinking?
Yeah, it was murder. Shooting an unarmed and unsuspecting elderly man is murder.
We have the rule of law in this country, and you cannot go murdering people doing legal things and with no trail and no sentencing.
If a Personhood act was passed by Congress and signed by the President, the unborn would be recognized as persons with the Constitutional right to life, and abortion would then be illegal.
The only beings that should get to decide “who gets killed” are God, and the intended victim of a would-be heinous criminal (murderer, rapist, and such). This is why guns are so handy, just like fire extingushers-!
The evil has metastasized enough that, over a decade ago, a conference of state supreme courts agreed that it would carry on Roe v. Wade if Congress did something like that. State constitutional amendments would then be needed.
It’s because the pro-life movement is no different, fundamentally, from the pro-choice movement; it believes a woman has a right to choose. We can persuade a woman not to make that choice, we can console and help her with healing after she’s made that choice, but we can’t obstruct her from making that choice. That’s her “right” and it’s protected by law. If that weren’t true, and pro-lifers really believed their own rhetoric, they would be blockading every abortion clinic in the country.
Well said! I discovered during this “episode” that I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.
Absolutley. Those people are called "liberal Democrats."
I would never murder anyone, but I cannot say I am not glad to see Tiller the Killer dead.
What goes around comes around.
He killed thousands and lived high on the hog because of a pile of human fetus’s left in his wake.
Sorry, Judy, it’s a little thing called the law. Currently his act constitutes at most vigilantism, but it doesn’t rise to outright justifiable homicide.
In the eyes of God, maybe, right now, the law interprets his act as illegal.
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.