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

Skip to comments.

Statement on the Death of George Tiller
Judy Pollock

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. Tiller’s 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 I’ve 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 Hitler’s 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; kittenchow; missinglink; roeder; scottroeder; tiller; troll; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 next last
To: Hugin; GoldStandard
“Because we have laws or we have anarchy.”
“We have the rule of law in this country”

Hugin & GoldStandard : I would normally agree with you, however, I would submit that we are no longer a nation that follows the ‘Rule of Law’. If we followed the rule of law Barack Obama would have been impeached over his obvious unconstitutional acts associated with the Bail out and bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM. Barney Frank & Chris Dodd would be facing trial for their blatant influence peddling and corruption associated with the collapse of Fanny & Freddie and the housing market. And Dr George Tiller would be in prison for performing illegal abortions as he was accused of just a few short months ago.

No. We live in a country almost wholly controlled by a political elite that cares little about what their constituents feel because almost none of them are ever not reelected. Gerrymandering and political dealing have driven us so far from a recognizable civil society that there is little hope that we will long survive as a free people.

51 posted on 06/07/2009 12:28:59 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp


52 posted on 06/07/2009 12:29:29 PM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: September

Ms. Pollock:

It is NEVER right to do WRONG in order to get a chance to do right.

Your “ends justify the means” argument may excuse murder — even the murder of an evil person — in your mind. But it violates every moral principle upon which the Pro-Life message rests.

It is this kind of reasoning that will eventually lead to an unnecessary and premature conflict based on emotion rather than reason, feelings rather than principles. When that conflict comes, we can ill afford to base our motives on emotions and revenge rather than responsible moral convictions.


53 posted on 06/07/2009 12:31:55 PM PDT by patriot preacher (To be a good American Citizen and a Christian IS NOT a contradiction. (www.mygration.blogspot.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
The Founders would totally reject the notion that something like abortion law could justify revolution, which they saw as a last-ditch recourse to solve problems that the political system cannot, and which even when successful ought to disrupt as little of the prior legal and social regime as possible.

The political and legal mechanism to overcome abortion rights has existed for the same 36 years as has Roe vs. Wade, including turnover of all 9 seats on the Supreme Court (two seats having turned over twice, counting Souter - Sotomayor). If the American people actually opposed abortion to any meaningful extent, abortion would be illegal now. It so happens that there is a sizable constituency that talks about disliking abortion, but the fraction who acts in reliance on that talk is much smaller. Even with 55 Republican Senators, Sam Alito had to pretend to be neutral on Roe. Sotomayor sure doesn't have to do so, any more than Ginsberg did 16 years ago.

And even if you want to pursue the revolutionary analogy further, the Founders conspicuously organized, and published a manifesto declaring the legal and moral basis why they were no longer bound by British law. Where is the radical pro-life movement's equivalent, with its signatories publicly identified -- ready to hang together or hang separately?

The founders than proceeded to defend that manifesto by way of revolution in accordance with the law of war -- which certainly did not involve killing civilian British administrators, no manner how actively engaged in carrying out noxious colonial polities.
54 posted on 06/07/2009 12:34:09 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Blacks abort at a rate 4x that of whites , you could blame that on a breakdown in the family (thanks welfare!) , single parent families (thanks welfare!, thanks radical feminism!), greater economic pressures ...

However to say that blacks abort because nobody will adopt their children is complete and utter BULL. Americans have been adopting children from all over the world for decades because abortion has cut off the supply of US born children...

You give me the names of 100 pregnant women who would give their child up for adoption and I will find you qualified adoptive parents who will pay medical expenses and a stipend for living expenses up to the birth... it’ll take me only a few weeks and that only because it would take time to get the word out.


55 posted on 06/07/2009 12:38:45 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/abortion_and_race


56 posted on 06/07/2009 12:40:19 PM PDT by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: September
I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.

Oh really newbie?
FYI, Scott Roeder is a mentally ill psychotic.

And its vanity posts LIKE THIS that gives all the 'proof' the left, the MSM, the Attorney General and Dept of Homeland Security needs that all pro-lifers are armed, dangerous, and ticking time bombs just waiting to go off on a killing spree of all abortion doctors and clinics. And as such 'we' need to be held under strict surveillance and disarmed before 'we' go on a 'Religious Right Jihad'.

And that DHS memo on Right Wing Extremists must of had YOU n mind when they wrote it, as YOU are insane. So go back to your padded cell asap. 'Help' like yours is not needed.

'Extol' that ya nut case TROLL.

57 posted on 06/07/2009 12:50:04 PM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: only1percent
The Founders would totally reject the notion that something like abortion law could justify revolution

Curious to know why you think that, given that the right to life is a liberty the Founding Fathers said could not be denied by a Government in their Declaration of Independence from Britain.

The Founders believed that we are a nation of laws, not men. There is a Law higher than man, and therefore, no man can has the authority to deny the right given him by his Creator. No Government has the authority to permit murder.
58 posted on 06/07/2009 12:53:32 PM PDT by mike182d ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: prismsinc

Here’s my law, anyone touches my children, I’ll kill them where they stand as painfully as I can. And that goes for any Planned Parenthhood jerk that helps a daughter with an abortion.

Hitler had “laws” for what he did too - so have other murdering despots over the years. Just because it’s “legal” doesn’t make it right. Our judicial system has become so perverse and corrupt that it is no wonder that vigilanties rise up.

If my foster parents and my in-laws generation had had some backbone when the gays started out of the closet and the baby butcher shops opened we might not be where we are today. Instead, they whispered in the church pew “what a shame” and “how awful” when THEY should have been the ones kicking judicial and activist a$$. Now it’s a plague on the land and when someone finally does step on one of the scumbags, there’s weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth.

Where’s the vigilante defense fund? I want to contribute.


59 posted on 06/07/2009 12:58:51 PM PDT by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: September
one useless sob killing another useless sob

Now thanks for playing and go home troll

60 posted on 06/07/2009 1:00:48 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: September

Caesar and Herod were mass murderers, and yet we are commanded in the New Testament to respect laws and authority.


61 posted on 06/07/2009 1:10:10 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GloriaJane
We are a nation of laws and we must work within the system, even if it takes a hundred years to change a bad law. We should never, never ever ever resort to taking a life.

If the founders believed that, there never would have been a United States. They broke the law and killed those who would stop them.

62 posted on 06/07/2009 1:11:56 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Exactly wrong.

The women procuring the abortions should be subject to a massive fine, as in incredibly massive, as a deterrent.


63 posted on 06/07/2009 1:22:39 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I am 100% against abortion and would accept it being taken out of the realm of the Supreme Court’s misclaimed jurisdiction and left to the states, because many would institute laws against it in the near term.

In the long term, I still want a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment.


64 posted on 06/07/2009 1:25:33 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheFourthMagi

Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree.


65 posted on 06/07/2009 1:26:54 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

They had the rule of law in Germany too didn’t they?


66 posted on 06/07/2009 1:27:20 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Dueling used to be quite acceptable. If it were reintroduced today you might find a few people around who engage in widespread mayhem, but ultimately they'd have to run up against a dishonored opponent.

I am not clear on why dueling was eliminated. Anyone have an idea?

67 posted on 06/07/2009 1:29:08 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

British civil administrators were frequent targets. Don’t know where you got the idea they weren’t. In the end they all shipped out to England and their friends went to New Brunswick.


68 posted on 06/07/2009 1:30:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

The black middle-class has more than its fair share of those abortions. The poor keep their babies.


69 posted on 06/07/2009 1:34:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
He reportedly charged a pretty penny, but did he make “exceptions” for “hardship cases”? As a “good liberal” with a “cause” one wonders if he went “pro bono” every once in a while.

You might disagree, but what Dr. Tiller did, he personally did for good reasons, for the purpose of helping women who were in trouble and who could get help almost nowhere else...

Now fork over the $7,000 for the services, please.

No, up front, dammit!!

70 posted on 06/07/2009 1:34:46 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hugin; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; wagglebee; September; blue-duncan; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
Becasue we have laws or we have anarchy. Then you might not like who the other guy decides needs killing.

Laws that do not serve justice are not lawful — as Alamo-Girl so beautifully illustrates here. She wrote: "In the case at hand, the courts, media and pro-abortion side are careful to call the unborn child, even a viable child, a fetus — and the killing, a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. But dehumanizing the unborn does not make it so, nor does using a substitute phrase making killing any less than what it is."

You can't make an unjustice just by "reinventing the language" and waving the magic wand of specious legal arguments.

Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.

And it is precisely because we don't want MEN deciding what "other guys need killing" that we have recourse to divine law, which is the foundation of American justice. Murder, as defined in the Bible, is the willful taking of innocent life. Roeder's act was certainly willful. But was Tiller an "innocent life?"

Just askin' — a conundrum for your reflection.

71 posted on 06/07/2009 1:41:20 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

There is help available at pregnancy centers in virtually every city.


72 posted on 06/07/2009 1:52:42 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
"Because we have laws or we have anarchy"

Yes indeed we will.

But, if the laws are "unjust", should the masses continue to abide them?

Unjust laws rendered by unjust men foster anarchy!

73 posted on 06/07/2009 1:54:22 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

With the same recourse for fathers in regards to those who kill their children by abortion?


74 posted on 06/07/2009 1:55:05 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

it violates every moral principle upon which the Pro-Life message rests.
******************************************
maybe he is not “pro-life” ,, maybe he is “anti-abortion” ...

You go ahead and have your war of words using reason and principles and let me know how far that gets you... (oh I forgot ,, 36 years and nothing to show for it because you’re playing against opponents that don’t follow your pitiful little rules... maybe your first clue should have been them using the supreme court to create law!)


75 posted on 06/07/2009 2:00:19 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You can't make an unjustice just by "reinventing the language" and waving the magic wand of specious legal arguments.

Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.

Indeed!

Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

76 posted on 06/07/2009 2:02:59 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare; betty boop; Jim from C-Town
But, if the laws are "unjust", should the masses continue to abide them?

Every person has his own idea of justice. There is certainly no consensus among "the masses" on abortion. Moreover we still live in a country where there peaceful means to change public policy. It is far more difficult than it should be when judges usurp power and put policy issues out of the hands of elected representatives, but it is still possible. Again, as far as taking the law into your own hands based on some self-percieved higher morality, that's the same justification used by the Unibomber, Earth First and the Amnimal Liberation Front. Or Al Qaeda for that matter. That can only justifiably be a last resort, when a broad support of the majority beleives there is no alternative. Otherwise, even if you win, it is simply a minority imposing their will by force. That's called tyranny.

77 posted on 06/07/2009 2:19:03 PM PDT by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Is REX LEX? Is the law king?
Ever since laws have been considered only man made they can
be changed. Killing a nearly born is not considered murder
in one epoch, but is in another.

Are there absolute rights and wrongs? Who was the last
guy who said “what is truth?”

We need some absolute truths, besides “party hardy”, or
“ you only live once, so go for the gusto” or “I felt like
it”. Otherwise anarchy, social, political and personal could
be our last reported location.


78 posted on 06/07/2009 2:53:00 PM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

I’m not disputing that aspect of it. Of course I feel as you do. I have twins!

I’m willing to defend the innocent, but what would you have us all do? Is Roe v. Wade crossing the line? Of course!

I have to be here for MY kids. I can’t engage in activity that will take me from my children.

Find me a solution. I’m all ears (um, eyes)


79 posted on 06/07/2009 3:08:29 PM PDT by prismsinc (A.K.A. "The Terminator"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
We also know, per Matthew 5:28, that Christ made no distinction between what is in a person's heart and the act itself. Any woman who has decided, in her heart, to terminate a pregnancy, is therefore also guilty of the sin. Should we therefore also execute any woman, according to these terms, who has not carried out the act, yet is guilty of the sin nonetheless.

Where do you draw the line. Who is deserving of execution, and who is not.

80 posted on 06/07/2009 3:11:00 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Getready

There have always been those willing to change the law by actually breaking the law.
Those people should be tried, by the law.
However, that very trial, in this case, should be used as another weapon to try and change the law.


81 posted on 06/07/2009 3:14:51 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: September
Amen, Amen, and Amen. To all of you people so devoted to the law, I second the reminder that hiding behind the law is a cowardly means of avoiding the tough decisions. The analogy I spoke of in my last post involved a newborn in a store with his/her parents when a mass shooter begins a rampage. Who among us would refrain from using deadly force to stop the killer, even if discharging a firearm inside city limits is AGAINST THE LAW. What if we were carrying a concealed weapon without a permit? We'd already be in violation of the law.
Anyway, there may be lives saved by the justice meted out to this butcher. Tiller is every bit as evil as Josef Mengele. The Freepers(?) so upset by the eradication of this vermin would have also turned a blind eye to the crimes of the Nazi's rather than circumvent the “law”.
As always, I encourage anyone opposed to pre-emtive life saving measures such as used last week in Kansas, to go seek employment in an abortuarium and see these evils up close and personal. The wretched evil I witnessed, but refused to participate in, brought me alot of vicious and nasty attacks and snubs (boo-hoo). This evil was of such a magnitude that I was left with a burning hole in my heart.
To all of you worshipers of the law I say rest well at night knowing that the Tillers of the world will always be afforded every benefit of a system established in God's name to preserve rights and liberty such as the world had never seen. May God Heal Our Land and forgive our insufficiently aroused spirits.
82 posted on 06/07/2009 3:19:41 PM PDT by karbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense
You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
Prior to Roe V. Wade, please name me ONE single case of a mother who was tried or convicted of murder for having an illegal abortion, would you?
Such cases were RARE!
What is important is that the medical community, itself, not be sucked down into the pro death sewer of the abortion culture.
The punishment should be on the backs of the butchers who call themselves abortionists, as it was BEFORE Roe V. Wade!
83 posted on 06/07/2009 3:22:14 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

please study a group called:

“Sons of Liberty”

You need a history lesson!


84 posted on 06/07/2009 3:23:29 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TheFourthMagi

I think you might have missed the point of my post.


85 posted on 06/07/2009 3:27:35 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TheFourthMagi

Since you missed it, I’ll explain it.

Evil people always make excuses for their actions.

Some of what Tiller did could certainly be excused or even approved by reasonable people (like performing abortions on late-term babies who had developed without brains, thereby making it so that they never had a chance for life).

But much of what he did, in my opinion at least, could not be excused by ANY reasonable, thinking person. Apparently around 95% of his abortions were of otherwise healthy, viable “fetuses,” and apparently (if I have understood correctly) several hundred a year of these were so late-term as to be able to live outside of the womb.

Tiller charged around $7,000 an abortion, and made probably a couple million dollars a year off of sucking babies out of their mothers’ wombs. I do not consider him to have been “noble.” I consider him to have been essentially a mass-murderer for hire. I’ve no doubt he came up with “perfectly good” reasons to justify his actions to himself and others. A lot of people even believe his reasons. I don’t.

I don’t particularly have a comment on Roeder’s actions in killing Dr. Tiller. Obviously, what he did was highly illegal. Whether or not it was justified, in a world where the law actively condones what Tiller did for a living, I’ll leave it to others to debate. I guess my point is, I don’t consider Tiller, in the final analysis, to have been anything other than human scum, so I won’t be shedding any tears or attending any memorial services to mourn the passing of an evil man who helped out at church every Sunday.


86 posted on 06/07/2009 3:48:41 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: September

>> Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?

Because killing an unborn child, fetus, is legal in the general case of abortion - that’s why. The legality provides false moral justification while suppressing outrage and scorn that might otherwise influence the decision to abort, not factoring law enforcement.

Regrettably, people do not agree on the value of life in the womb, and the law has been shaped to reflect this to the detriment of the human newbie. Yes, it’s legal to kill human newbies - that is, a fetus, an unborn child.

All humans should be afforded the protection of the law, especially when it’s inconvenient.


87 posted on 06/07/2009 3:52:04 PM PDT by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
All humans should be afforded the protection of the law, especially when it’s not inconvenient.
88 posted on 06/07/2009 3:58:59 PM PDT by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: csense; Alamo-Girl
Where do you draw the line. Who is deserving of execution, and who is not.

The point is there's no way to draw the line if one keeps pushing one's own idea of truth into unlivable directions. Too much "doctrine" will kill you. It is not for us to judge who is worthy of execution. It is for us to witness unto God's law — which is eternal Justice. And as for the rest of it, to love God with one's whole heart and soul and mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. He will take care of the rest.

89 posted on 06/07/2009 4:06:36 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Prior to Roe V. Wade, please name me ONE single case of a mother who was tried or convicted of murder for having an illegal abortion, would you?

We're Talking about divine law, and that is what I was responding to concerning BettyBoop's post. In that sense, you're the one confusing the issue at hand regarding my statement. Now, if you have nothing intelligent to add to that, then please, bother someone else with your nonsense...

90 posted on 06/07/2009 4:30:21 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

Placemarker


91 posted on 06/07/2009 4:31:55 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: September

Dr. Jack Wheeler feels pretty much the same. He wrote a column called ‘Tiller the Killer.’


92 posted on 06/07/2009 4:33:04 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
The punishment should be on the backs of the butchers who call themselves abortionists, as it was BEFORE Roe V. Wade!

If abortion is murder, which I believe it is, then both the abortionist and the woman are guilty. Period.

93 posted on 06/07/2009 4:35:22 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You’re the one who invoked divine law and later asked if tiller was an innocent life. Well, I’m asking you...is the woman innocent in this.


94 posted on 06/07/2009 4:42:08 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: csense
Yes, but there are many different ways that we prohibit, or regulate, behavior.
We are NOT required, by ANY moral code, to treat the mothers the same way that we treat the abortionists.
This was NOT the case prior to Roe.
More to the POINT:

Your vindictive and judgmental attitude is NOT shared by ANY of the mainstream prolife groups.

The National Right to Life Committee, for one, has always said that it was not their goal to put abortive women in jail.

It does not do our cause any good to advocate such a thing.

Besides, some of our BEST leaders happen to be: POST ABORTIVE WOMEN!!!

95 posted on 06/07/2009 4:44:08 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

I share your view.
Gang Bangers shoot each other all the time.
I am often happy to hear that one scum bag shot another scum bag.
Of course, the scum bags should be prosecuted, when caught.

However, it makes no difference to me.

Cops call gang wars: “self cleaning ovens”


96 posted on 06/07/2009 4:47:11 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: karbine

Amen right back at ya!

Will the death of Tiller save lives? I don’t know.

I do know this - Tiller will never kill again, and most definately, right now, he is pro-life.


97 posted on 06/07/2009 4:49:29 PM PDT by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

Tiller will also, never again, use his blood money to corrupt our legal system.


98 posted on 06/07/2009 4:51:33 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: csense; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; wmfights; metmom
You’re the one who invoked divine law and later asked if tiller was an innocent life. Well, I’m asking you...is the woman innocent in this.

Hardly. But in this particular instance, the "private sin" is made actual and publicly explicit only with the help of Dr. Tiller or someone like him. He is the facilitator of the sin, the aider and abetter thereof. So long as the "private sin" remains unrealized, the unborn child is safe. Dr. Tiller was the "efficient cause," the facilitator of the sin's becoming manifest, which of course destroys the pre-born child almost every time. And he clearly embraced his role as efficient cause with a certain obscene gusto — Abortion evidently was so precious to him that he declared himself willing to go to Hell for it.

Question: Do you think Tiller was an "innocent life?"

99 posted on 06/07/2009 5:02:37 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: csense
If abortion is murder, which I believe it is, then both the abortionist and the woman are guilty. Period.

Agreed.

100 posted on 06/07/2009 5:05:24 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 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