Replies

Ms. Pollock:

It is NEVER right to do WRONG in order to get a chance to do right.

Your “ends justify the means” argument may excuse murder — even the murder of an evil person — in your mind. But it violates every moral principle upon which the Pro-Life message rests.

It is this kind of reasoning that will eventually lead to an unnecessary and premature conflict based on emotion rather than reason, feelings rather than principles. When that conflict comes, we can ill afford to base our motives on emotions and revenge rather than responsible moral convictions.

I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.

Oh really newbie?
FYI, Scott Roeder is a mentally ill psychotic.

And its vanity posts LIKE THIS that gives all the 'proof' the left, the MSM, the Attorney General and Dept of Homeland Security needs that all pro-lifers are armed, dangerous, and ticking time bombs just waiting to go off on a killing spree of all abortion doctors and clinics. And as such 'we' need to be held under strict surveillance and disarmed before 'we' go on a 'Religious Right Jihad'.

And that DHS memo on Right Wing Extremists must of had YOU n mind when they wrote it, as YOU are insane. So go back to your padded cell asap. 'Help' like yours is not needed.

'Extol' that ya nut case TROLL.

Amen, Amen, and Amen. To all of you people so devoted to the law, I second the reminder that hiding behind the law is a cowardly means of avoiding the tough decisions. The analogy I spoke of in my last post involved a newborn in a store with his/her parents when a mass shooter begins a rampage. Who among us would refrain from using deadly force to stop the killer, even if discharging a firearm inside city limits is AGAINST THE LAW. What if we were carrying a concealed weapon without a permit? We'd already be in violation of the law.
Anyway, there may be lives saved by the justice meted out to this butcher. Tiller is every bit as evil as Josef Mengele. The Freepers(?) so upset by the eradication of this vermin would have also turned a blind eye to the crimes of the Nazi's rather than circumvent the “law”.
As always, I encourage anyone opposed to pre-emtive life saving measures such as used last week in Kansas, to go seek employment in an abortuarium and see these evils up close and personal. The wretched evil I witnessed, but refused to participate in, brought me alot of vicious and nasty attacks and snubs (boo-hoo). This evil was of such a magnitude that I was left with a burning hole in my heart.
To all of you worshipers of the law I say rest well at night knowing that the Tillers of the world will always be afforded every benefit of a system established in God's name to preserve rights and liberty such as the world had never seen. May God Heal Our Land and forgive our insufficiently aroused spirits.

>> Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?

Because killing an unborn child, fetus, is legal in the general case of abortion - that’s why. The legality provides false moral justification while suppressing outrage and scorn that might otherwise influence the decision to abort, not factoring law enforcement.

Regrettably, people do not agree on the value of life in the womb, and the law has been shaped to reflect this to the detriment of the human newbie. Yes, it’s legal to kill human newbies - that is, a fetus, an unborn child.

All humans should be afforded the protection of the law, especially when it’s inconvenient.

“Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?”

Because in the first case, the action is effective. In the second case, it isn’t.

In the first case, the law and the society affirm the action of the good citizen. The government is unlikely to offer protection to other mad doctors who will rampage through hospital nurseries. The society condemns the doctor and praises the hero who put down the mad doctor. Nothing in law or culture encourages or protects the next mad doctor. The concept of the legal protection of the born children in the nursery is not brought into disrepute by the actions of the hero gunman.

On the other hand, in the killing of the abortionist, there will be another to take his place. The dead abortionist is considered a martyr to his cause. The baby butcher who takes his place is lionized as a courageous hero. The government promises to enhance physical security for baby butchers everywhere. The society, the culture view the one who exterminated the baby butcher as an “extremist” who acted as a “vigilante,” who violated the law.

Remember that it isn’t illegal to kill the mad doctor - the defense of innocent life is an affirmative defense to charges of murder. However, because it IS legal for abortionists to murder unborn babies, it is ALSO ILLEGAL to exterminate abortionists to prevent them from killing again. Thus, the one who exterminated the abortionist, unlike the hero in the nursery, has committed, legally, some act of illegal, legally-unjustified homicide.

The actions of the abortionist-exterminator thus are feckless, and socially and culturally, do harm. He stops very few, if any, further murders of unborn babies. His actions bring into disrepute the concept that unborn children should be protected in law. And lastly, he delays the day when unborn children will finally be protected in law.

You gotta shake lose of the labia,
if you wanna chance to LIVE.

Until then, momma ain’t got your back, BABY!

Momma ain’t got yo’ back
Momma ain’t got yo’ back

It was warm inside
And then I tried to HIDE

Momma ain’t got my BACK!

And they seraphim say:

(I want my baby back baby back baby back . . .)