Well, duh!!!! "He made the wrong choice." Are you under any illusion that I disagree with that assessment?
The problem is: What do people committed to the sanctity of Life do about Roeder's choice now?
Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you: You stop throwing around the "T-word," and I'll stop nit-picking you! :^)
God's Grace be with you, dear brother in Christ!
Betty: “You [Bruce] appear to want to say Let’s cut through all the B.S. and simply say that both men deserve(d) the electric chair”
Bruce: “Betty, I have clearly said that I supported the electric chair for Tiller, if our laws were just, and that I wouldn’t convict on 1st degree murder for Roeder, as I believe that his religious duties led him to a place that society was not willing to take up for him - and should have. I still believe however, that he made the wrong choice.”
Betty: Well, Duh!!!!”He made the wrong choice.” Are you under any illusion that I disagree with that assessment?
Bruce: Duh, what? We pro-lifers are all trying to makes sense of it - so what sense of ‘duh’ is there in that? Quite a few people in this discussion are saying something like “I don’t support or condone what Roeder did, but I’m glad he did it...and/or Tiller had it coming to him.” IMHO, those people really *do* condone Roeder’s vigilantism, even if they wouldn’t be a vigilante themselves.
People can’t have it both ways - either Roeder’s action was morally wrong or morally right for the pro-life movement. I maintain Roeder was morally wrong - however tortured his own morals and feelings may have been. I also maintain, that on balance, what he and the other vigilantes did harms the pro-life movement more than helps in the long term, especially if others copycat him - justify more violence/murder in the name of Life.