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 ...
“while its termination in the third trimester is often literally combat.”
I regret having eaten dinner.
Can’t deal with the reality of it, can you!
Sorry!
Here on the left coast we haven’t started yet...
Not according to the Supreme Court. See Horne v. Flores, and about a dozen other cases where the Supreme Court ordered that a particular administration spend money it refused to spend. The Executive can't pick and choose what programs it's going to operate, and which ones it isn't.
You're comparing the ability of a US President, presumably any US President to issue an Executive Order with the action of a dictator issuing an edict or ruling by fiat. The comparison is a fallacy, and to make it one must be entirely devoid of intellectual honesty or logic. There are no checks on the Dictator - hence the name. But, there are a myriad of checks on the Executive, to include his ability to issue Executive Orders.
Sadly, I would say the folks on the left coast are way ahead of us...
“cut them into pieces.... it is the only way to be sure baby killers are dead.....”
Then do it.
Otherwise, you are just a Keyboard Cowboy.
“and to make it one must be entirely devoid of intellectual honesty or logic.”
OK, I am entirely devoid of intellectual honesty or logic. You got me. I am an idiot.
“Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not
suspect my years? O that he were here to write me
down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an
ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not
that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of
piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness.
I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer,
and, which is more, a householder, and, which is
more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in
Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a
rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath
had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every
thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that
I had been writ down an ass!”
Life at conception is discernible by God at the very moment of conception and you pro aborts must realize that life begins at conception.
Terrific, I quote Supreme Court cases and you quote Shakespeare. I guess your argument is much ado about nothing.
Shakespeare? “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
LOL.
You have to understand, patton, that for OldDeckHand the law is a way to shackle the pro-life advocates. We must follow the strict letter of the law, no matter how much it renders our effort futile.
Note how often he refers to constitutional legal process viz. the pro-life movement, yet never acknowledges that the anti-life law skirted that same legal process. Note how he never acknowledges that abortion became “LAW” much the same way Hitler’s edicts did - not through a constitutional democratic process, but through dictatorial fiat.
Nevermind that America was brought into existence to defend the right to life. Nevermind that this very purpose was upended by a handful of jurists. They can get away with it. But no, pro-lifers have to be handcuffed by the Constitution, jumping hurdle after legalistic hurdle before he’ll sign off on our right to defend helpless little babies. “Dot all your i’s and cross all your t’s - in triplicate - and then we’ll talk about stopping the bloodshed and butchery.”
Hmm. Reminds me of those who want to grant terrorists a criminal trial. That ain’t no way to win a war, and this ain’t no way to save babies’ lives. One is national suicide, and the other is legalized mass homicide.
This man is a soldier in this war who throws himself on a live grenade!
Your tap dance is really pointless.
We all know you don’t give a damn anyway, and see no difference between clubbing a baby to death and taking a pill.
Let us suppose you are 16, and your 16-yo girlfriend is on her way to abort your 8-mo baby.
What do you do?
What can you do?
You remind me of a toddler who wets their bed at night. I guess we're even.
"Note how he never acknowledges that abortion became “LAW” much the same way Hitler’s edicts did - not through a constitutional democratic process, but through dictatorial fiat."
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational and reasoned conversation with a person who equates a Supreme Court Decision - a process codified in the US Constitution - as a "dictatorial fiat".
When Roe is eventually overturned by a different Supreme Court decision, what will you say to the pro-abortionists who cries that it wasn't a democratic decision, but a dictatorial fiat? Will you show some intellectual consistency, or will you be a hypocrite? It's a rhetorical question, no need to reply.
I an opposed to killing babies via taking an abortion pill and it would appear that you do not oppose taking a pill to kill a baby.
God knows.
I suspect he does.
"What can you do?"
You can do anything you wish, so long as you're willing to accept responsibility for your actions and whatever the consequences might be for such actions.
"What do you do?"
You obey the law. Murder is not civil disobedience.
Of course, Reoder was neither 16, nor was any child of his - born or unborn - in any jeopardy, to say nothing of immediate jeopardy or danger. Tiller murdered a man in cold blood because he didn't agree with a Supreme Court decision. That's not admirable, that's anarchy.
“Tiller murdered ...”
Freudian slip?
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.