Replies

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,

Actually in the case of late term abortions, I do not believe that to be true. Tiller's death was a targeted assassination of a man who was illegally performing late term abortions.

If anything this incident will bring a lot of attention to the practice of late term abortions and the fact of the matter is that anyone who actually sees the remains of a late term aborted baby cannot pretend in their mind that this was not the premeditated murder of a live baby.

Americans hate baby killers and by and large I suspect that Americans secretly admire people who kill baby killers. I think that this incident will bring a lot of attention to the horrors of what Tiller was doing in Wichita with the tacit approval of the State of Kansas (which had laws specifically protecting the lives of viable babies in the womb). Since the state had abrogated it's lawful duty to stop Tiller from performing illegal abortions and killing viable infants, I believe this justifies "taking the law into your own hands."

What had happened in Kansas was that the laws protected the unborn, but the people in charge of enforcing those laws had deliberately looked the other way (mostly because Tiller had been greasing the palms of those charged with executing the laws that Tiller so brazenly had violated.

I think it is wrong to call Roeder a "Terrorist" (the "T" word).

Roeder was not a terrorist, he was an assassin. There is a monumental difference. What he did was not a terrorist act, it was an assassination. No collateral damage was anticipated or intended and none occurred. The purpose was not to terrorize anyone. It would appear that it was to end a practice that the Governor of the State of Kansas had categorically refused to end.

Frankly Kathleen Sebelius bears most of the responsibility for this incident. She took blood money from Tiller in exchange for giving him freedom from prosecution for illegally killing viable human fetuses.

Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to "Take the law into their own hands".

The more I think about this case, the more I find myself having a lot of sympathy for Roeder.

“I think it is wrong to call Roeder a “Terrorist” (the “T” word)...Roeder was not a terrorist, he was an assassin. There is a monumental difference. What he did was not a terrorist act, it was an assassination. No collateral damage was anticipated or intended and none occurred. The purpose was not to terrorize anyone. It would appear that it was to end a practice that the Governor of the State of Kansas had categorically refused to end...Frankly Kathleen Sebelius bears most of the responsibility for this incident. She took blood money from Tiller in exchange for giving him freedom from prosecution for illegally killing viable human fetuses.”
****************
I agree with the part about Sebelius - I also like wmfights take on how to address the pro-abort crowd on this matter. ‘Why did you create him?’, he said. That said, the pro-life movement and we pro-lifers *must* know where we stand on this. As much as you can say that this does not harm the movement, assassinating a handful of 3rd trimester abortionists does not stop the bulk of abortions - so in what way does it really advance the movement - vs. advancing one specific item (no more late term abortions in Wichita)? What is next P-Marlowe - shall we advocate the full scale “assassination program” to target all 2nd Trimester abotionists? Why or why not? Will that help our cause, do you suppose?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to “Take the law into their own hands”.
*******************

We can talk philosophically/Biblically about this (Acts 5:29 - “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’”....Gamaliel added later in that account: “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5:38b, 39)

- but have we arrived at such a place? I'll ask you the question I just asked Betty Boop - have we come to a place where we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government?

To some degree, I'm trying to understand the level of support we have for violence, in the cause of defending innocent lives, and what our current understanding and parameters are.

At this point - I support what the Patriots did in 1775 (which involved killing representatives of the British crown (the British army)) - while I don't support Roeder’s act, because no one can clearly explain to me how this helps reduce the mass of abortions, nor helps the pro-life movement generally, and it doesn't have the appropriate pro-life leadership and general support; as such it fails to pass the test of a legitimate act of moral protest that I, or most people in the pro-life movement, nor most Americans can support - despite your interesting notion that most Americans may agree that ‘killing babies is wrong.’

If those advocating violence against abortionists (please, I'm not being specific to people on the board unless it somehow applies to you), or against tyrannical government in general (?), can present their case and persuade a significant portion of Americans to rise up - then we'd have some kind of parallel with the 1775 Patriots. Until then we have an isolated act of violence, which I and most pro-lifers do not support as being helpful.