Replies

Yes, he had to prove himself innocent. That’s what happens when you put on an affirmative defense - the burden is on the defense not the prosecutor, which is as it should be in such cases.

By the way, the man is guilty as sin of murder in the first degree. You cannot use murder to justify the stopping of murder unless your life or the lives of other people is in imminent danger (a person according to the definition in the law is someone who has been born and taken a breath, and, in many jurisdictions, are no longer attached to the mother by the umbilical cord). Unfortunately a fetus is currently afforded no such protection. Until the laws are changed (and fat chance of that happening), fetuses will not be recognized as living persons.

“Unfortunately a fetus is currently afforded no such protection. Until the laws are changed (and fat chance of that happening), fetuses will not be recognized as living persons.”

It sounds like you consider fetuses to be living persons. If so, do you believe he was morally justified though legally guilty of the crime?

Unfortunately a fetus is currently afforded no such protection. Until the laws are changed (and fat chance of that happening), fetuses will not be recognized as living persons.

Gee, since "fetus" is just the Latin word for "infant", does that make it okay for me to kill you as long as I say, "Well, it was only a homo hominus after all."?

a person according to the definition in the law is someone who has been born and taken a breath, and, in many jurisdictions, are no longer attached to the mother by the umbilical cord

And that is where the law ceases to be relevant to me. If I kill a baby that's still attached to the umbilical cord I've still killed a baby, to hell with what the law says or the jurisdiction it occurs in. It would be moral to use lethal force to stop me, if I were in the process of attempting it, regardless of whether the law says so or not. Laws do not dictate right and wrong. If they happen to coincide, so be it. If they happen to violate someone's rights or refuse to recognize personhood, then civil disobedience might be called for. This was not civil though, and it was not called for and on that I agree with the jury's decision.

The mistake all these murderers make is that they're not saving any baby in imminent danger. You can't kill someone just because they promised to kill others, even if they've done so in the past. It's not legal regardless of whether the promised future-murders would be recognized by the law as murder or not. He didn't save anyone by killing Tiller, nor could he. Someone else will just take Tiller's place, and you can't even point to any particular life "saved" as a result of this with any level of confidence. The only true way to save someone is to expose the evil that is abortion and advocate a change in the law while educating mothers-to-be out of that decision.