“I wouldn’t ever murder anyone but who’s to say he didn’t save many lives?”
I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense.
I would say a better defense than temporary insanity.
I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense.Correct. They guy killed somebody. He should be prosecuted. Just saying, and for clarity's sake I'll add the following to my original statement, "in my eyes" he's no more or less guilty than the abortionists.
I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense. Interesting. Consider the following scenario:
A group of school children are sitting together in a theater, all strapped into their chairs watching a movie or play. In walks a lone gunman who, one by one, begins shooting the children. One of the adults present, who happens to be carrying a weapon of his own (it is a right-to-carry state :-) ), shoots the gunman dead.
My view is that the adult who shot the gunman not only would not be prosecuted (as it would be considered justifiable homicide in the name of protecting human life, per your comment), he would be celebrated and regarded as a community hero.
Now, this question remains. If we as pro-lifers REALLY believe that unborn children are fully human and thus deserving of the same rights and legal status as born children - what is the MORAL difference between the two scenarios (I understand the legal difference)?
Granted, if we do not consider the unborn to be fully human, but rather a fetus or some other euphamism - it is an easy distinction to make. But most pro-lifers say they do not believe that.
It always strikes me as a contradiction that pro-lifers quickly condemn those who commit violence against abortionists, yet in the scenario I described above, they would be the first to cheer the person who killed the individual killing children.
Again - if we truly believe babies in the womb are just as alive as babies out of the womb and deserving the same protection - what is the moral difference?
I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense. Hey Truman'sApologist. Seems you missed this:
Kansas Statutes Amended:
Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 32: Principles Of Criminal Liability Statute 21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
