I've been meditating on your line of reasoning. My understanding is that to whatever extent people have been claiming that abortion is "murder" that those same people are complicit in causing Roeder to murder Tiller to prevent more murders, i.e. "justifiable homicide."
Personally, I do not believe the end justifies the means. And yet I do recall the story of a man on a hunting trip, stopping along the way, and using the scope on his rifle to check out the land, spotted a guy fixing to execute a trooper. What else could he do but murder the guy? I cannot fathom any jury finding such a man guilty of first degree murder - or any prosecutor foolish enough to seek such a finding.
As for me, I know I have called abortion killing though I don't remember whether I've used the word "murder." But the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" interprets to "don't willfully murder an innocent person."
But murder under God's Law is not necessarily the same as murder under the laws and language of men.
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.
And if the courts tomorrow decide that anyone over the age of 80 is no longer a human but a "useless eater" that does not make it truth. Likewise if the courts decide that putting a "useless eater" down is not murder but culling, that does not make it truth.
Personally, I do not feel like I am complicit in Roeder's actions by accurately describing what abortion "is" under God's Law - I am merely speaking truth. If anything, I am the scope on the rifle.
There is no blood on my hands.
Amen to that, dearest sister in Christ!
To say that we are "complicit" in Roeder's act simply because we sanctify life is to play into the destructive hands of King O and his minions.