| Life begins at conception, therefore there is no difference between a first and third trimester abortion. Congratulations for seeing the light. Stopping legalized murder is justifiable, regardless of how old the person is.
|
Posted on 01/28/2010 12:16:12 PM PST by Ben Mugged
A self-proclaimed born-again Christian who believes all abortions are a sin told his trial for murder today that he shot dead an abortion doctor in Wichita, Kansas, to protect unborn children.
Scott Roeder said he had bought a .22-calibre Taurus gun and ammunition on 30 May 2009, the day before he shot George Tiller, and practised target shooting with his brother. Then he checked into a motel in Wichita, and the next day followed Tiller to the church in the town where the doctor was an usher.
His defence lawyer asked: "Did you go and shoot Dr Tiller?"
Roeder replied: "Yes."
His confession is part of his defence that he felt forced to kill in order to save the lives of unborn children. He has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.
It is the first time in US legal history that a violent anti-abortionist has been allowed to present the jury with his justification for murder.
The judge in the case, Warren Wilbert, caused dismay among pro-abortionists and doctors this month when he ruled that Roeder would be allowed to present his justification to the court. Wilbert will decide later in the trial in Kansas whether the jury will be permitted to find the defendant guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.
Tiller was killed in the Reformation Lutheran church with one shot to the head. He had long been a target for anti-abortionists as he was one of few doctors prepared to perform legal late abortions, after 21 weeks of gestation.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Fair enough - I agree as well.
I am sure Roeder (sp?) strongly believes that as well - hence the legal basis for his argument.
I don't know that his defense will be successful. I do know that, if he truly believed that morally he was justified in the killing in an effort to save lives (and clearly he did) - then he has a possible case for manslaughter rather than murder.
Since you chose not to answer my original question, I can only assume you do not see a moral difference between the two scenarios, only a legal one. If I am wrong, please correct me.
With that Being the case, a radical pro-lifer can kill a pharmacist who dispenses the “morning after pill.”
Why?
Since you obviously lack the background in the vast amout of evidence pointing to government involvement in the murra bombing, and rely on a book of propaganda and falsehood to prop up your absurd arguments, I will discontinue any further discussion with you.
Dr. Carhart is doing them now. If you don’t have a problem with 1st degree murder of abortion doctors, and you have a gun (you must have, you’re a freeper), there’s still late term abortions taking place. You know where Dr. Carhart is.
Something tells me, you’re not going to do anything. I would hope what prevents you from taking action is, because you have principles and a moral foundation.
The jury is the superior court; the judge is merely a proctor.
That woman, Christin Gilbert, suffered from Downs Syndrome. Legally she was incapable of consent and a ward of her parents, who brought her to Tiller.
Sounds like you’re a McVeigh defender, too. In that case I’m done with YOU. Now excuse me while I wash off the filth.
How about a hypothetical? Would a soon-to-be father be justified in shooting an abortion doctor to prevent the abortion of his own child? The doctor is ready to go, the woman has consented, and the police have just arrived to arrest the father; he has one chance to save his unborn baby, and that is to shoot the doctor in defense of his child.
Of course it is, as laid out in the Constitution.
Will you plainly answer whether or not you support and revere the US Constitution? It sure seems that you do not.
The method of self-governance laid out in that document is NOT one of jury vigilantism and chaos, but of elected representation and distributed powers. The sort of small, focused, absolute authority you espouse is PRECISELY what the Founders prohibit!
Perhaps we've abdicated that responsibilty? Perhaps we have for too long lazily delegated that duty further and further up the chain of power that we can no longer make decisions for ourselves about what sort of communities we'd like to have?
Who is this "we" of which you speak? Don't you mean the sort of communities you would like to have?
I mean, that's what you're really getting at. You don't want "the people" to govern, since they sometimes create laws you don't like. You want to be able to ignore and override "the people" so you can have things your way.
It's the spirit of tyranny, no different than Hugo Chavez.
If so, let us hang our heads in shame, for we're unworthy of the inheritance bequeathed to us in blood by our nation's founders!
How utterly absurd and mocking of you to mention the nation's founders while you proudly undermine the principles for which they fought!
You should hang your head in shame. You carry the spirit of everything the founders opposed.
If you're suggesting that the consequences of my principles might convince me to abandon my principles, you've misjudged me, my FRiend.
I'm suggesting you think about what you're really saying, and how it would work if your ideas were applied on a large scale.
I doubt you'll change your mind, since you haven't had to actually see and consider the consequences of your ideas. Your principles are anti-American and anti-conservative.
Thank God there aren't too many of you.
I agree with you. Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder. To shoot a man down in cold blood, in church, in the name of God is beyond justification.
It does not make Roeder any better than Tiller. To justify it is an insult to the soul of every child Tiller aborted.
I thought McVeigh said that - the day would come when we looked back and realized we executed a hero ::yeah right::
If killing the doctor is such a laudable action, worthy of medals, it sure is rare. The last doctor killing was 12 years ago. Apparently a guy nutty and schizophrenic enough to save the babies this way only comes once a decade. How unsatisfying for these moral-relativist freepers.
Definately not a McVey defender; even though his truck bomb did little to the building, he fully intended it to be destructive, and he was an accomplice to mass murder.
Kindly show me the jury for the Supreme Court?
You're just wrong, FRiend.
The people govern through elected representation in this country, not through jury nullification.
This is the same Kansas that had acquitted Tiller just a few weeks before, isn’t it?
You know that he said nothing of the kind - You are a common liar!
Superior court, not supreme.
Have you ever dealt with truth, or is this your standard operation?
| Life begins at conception, therefore there is no difference between a first and third trimester abortion. Congratulations for seeing the light. Stopping legalized murder is justifiable, regardless of how old the person is.
|
Terrific, pick Hassan - the psychiatrist murdering Major then. He certainly is entitled to a jury trial and all the Constitutional rights of any citizen. Would you defend an act of jury nullification by one of his fellow Muslims that happens to be sitting on his jury? I'll eagerly await your convoluted logic where you say "no".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
