I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court

Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

[trumandogz]

Roe was a seed of anarchy. It permits some murders while others are prohibited.

Yes, you are correct and there seem to be posters on this thread who have the same opinion as they believe it is justified to kill a Dr. Tiller but they do not think one would be justified in killing a doctor that prescribes birth control pills or implants IUD's into women's uteruses.

When a government becomes so corrupt that it permits - and even promotes - the murder of a certain class of people, after defining them as non-persons, it has abdicated its fundamental duty, and with it, all rightful authority to judge those who take up that duty. The duty rightly devolves again to the people - who gave the government its authority in the first place.

So, therefore you would not be opposed to Pro Lifers taking the Protection of life of the unborn into their own hands and shooting doctors that perform abortions, doctors that prescribe birth control pills and the women who intend to have an abortion or those women who take birth control pills?

Slaughtering a cow is not murder, but slaughtering a baby is.

Perhaps, a fundamentalist Hindu would see no difference between taking the life of an unborn baby and taking the life of a cow. And if he does have the view what is to stop him from killing some guy that works at a slaughterhouse?

We the people might say, in other words, "We ourselves will judge whether Tiller was guilty and deserving of death, and whether Roeder acted on our behalf and with our authority."

Actually that question was left up to a Kansas jury and it took them a whooping 36 minutes to find Roeder guilty and send him away to prison for the rest of his life.