Replies

Arguments like yours lack an important philosophical underpinning. Do you know why ex-post-facto laws were constitutionally forbidden? I do, and it applies here.

You as an individual have the right to understand the consequences of your actions beforehand, before you commit yourself to any act. It is morally wrong for the state to deprive you of that informed consent, and it is morally wrong for the individual to deprive another individual of that.

Roeder knew in advance that his actions were illegal and the outcome should he break that most sacred of laws. Tiller, monster or man, it matters not, did not act outside of the law. Had he, and the state’s remedy was execution, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

We all the run the risk of being gunned down by a madman. It could be argued that given Tiller’s ugly profession, he attracted more madmen willing to act unlawfully, but that’s not really informed consent.

I’m afraid that we’re going to have to find a harsh way to deal with the Roeders of this country. Harsh enough that others like them won’t dare act.

The Tillers don’t scare me nearly as much, as they’ll respect the law and cease and desist should abortion be legally proscribed. A monster who acts within the law doesn’t scare me nearly as much as a monster who doesn’t care.

Arguments like yours lack an important philosophical underpinning. Do you know why ex-post-facto laws were constitutionally forbidden? I do, and it applies here.

Ex post facto is irrelevant here. It was not the state who executed him. What your argument assumes is that the state is still acting on behalf of, and at the will of, the people. However, it is not. Roe vs. Wade was a judicial fiat which removed the Constitutional right of the states to determine their own legalities on the matter of abortion. Americans should have revolted right then. They did not, and the Left was further encouraged to use the courts as a means to usurp power they are specifically forbidden to have.

Our government is broken in the sense that there is no longer a system of checks and balances in our federal government, nor is there a federal system. What we have, effectively, is a one-party system in place in which dictates from the party central are carried out down to the municipal level. In other words, the Democrats control the Congress, the executive branch, and, largely, the judicial branch. When the powers that be in the Party dictate that abortion shall be legal everywhere, all three branches act to carry out that dictate, using whatever unconstitutional shenanigans they can to make it happen. Likewise, any state or local governments which are controlled by the Democrats also act to carry out these dictates, although it is really unnecessary for them to want to do so because the federal government has usurped the domain of state and local governments in that the federal courts and the federal Congress now make proclamations and laws which control local behaviors, e.g. prayer in schools, legality of abortion, whether a state can forbid benefits to illegals (prop 187 in CA), etc. Effectively, we no longer have a system of federalism - we have a ruling national party.

In that environment, Americans need to understand that waiting for the government on ANY level to act in a way that reflects the will of the people is pointless. The local governments bow to the will of the federal government, and the federal government bows to the will of the party in charge, currently the Democrats. Therefore, using the argument that only government-sanctioned justice is legitimate is dead wrong. When the federal government made national law by fiat, it gave up its legitimacy. The people must now enforce their will themselves or it will not be enforced.