“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?
This may be relevant in an academic environment: however, in real life it has no practical impact.
No. Tiller still, slim of chance as he had, could have changed his ways before his next legal murder.
If Roeder did this, at the clinic, right before Tiller was killing a baby in immediate danger, then I could see a possible defense, legally or morally.
I do believe that a fetus is a living person. No I do not believe this man, nor any other, is morally justified in committing murder. Murder is prohibited by God and law. While, IMHO, abortion is murder, murder cannot be the way to end this practice.
“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?”
He was not legally guilty of murder. The “law” that allows the mass murder of innocent babies is an illegal act. It violates Natural Law (God’s Law). Natural Law transcends national law as witnessed in the Nuremberg trials following World War ll.
There is NO SUCH THING as a fetus. Women don't give birth to "fetuses." They give birth to children. This is an abortionist's crafted word. Why fall for the deceptions of the left?