That fellow Carhart was going to take over Tiller’s clinic and continue his work. But then he looked at the numbers, or his bank balance, or something, and he decided not to.
So Tiller’s clinic has been shut down, one of the few places where people could get that kind of late-term or partial-birth abortion done.
Which is not to say that this was the right thing to do. But he did say that his motive was to stop future abortions. And it does seem likely that there will actually be fewer of that kind of abortions done in the future.
I thought I'd read that someone HAD decided to carry on with Killer Tiller's macabre “work.”
sitetest
This article
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/lina_thorne/2009/12/09/support_dr_carhart
suggests that the baby-butcher named Carhart has expanded his “practice” to abortions of six-month old and older unborn children in response to the extermination of Killer Tiller, although he will continue to operate from Nebraska rather than from Killer Tiller's old clinic.
Since women often travel great distances to have their older unborn children killed, it may be that Killer Carhart’s intervention will reduce, even entirely, the effect of the elimination of Tiller.
sitetest
Cicero -
You know I deeply respect your opinions (which usually fall in lockstep with my own), so I would appreciate your thoughts on the following scenario I previously posted on a thread about Roeder’s conviction:
A group of school children are sitting together in a theater, all strapped into their chairs watching a movie or play. In walks a lone gunman who, one by one, begins shooting the children. One of the adults present, who happens to be carrying a weapon of his own (it is a right-to-carry state :-) ), shoots the gunman dead.
My view is that the adult who shot the gunman not only would not be prosecuted (as it would be considered justifiable homicide in the name of protecting human life, per your comment), he would be celebrated and regarded as a community hero, especially by the Pro-life community.
Now, this question remains. If we as pro-lifers REALLY believe that unborn children are fully human and thus deserving of the same rights and legal status as born children - what is the MORAL difference between the two scenarios (I understand the current legal difference,which we obviously want to change)?
Granted, if we do not consider the unborn to be fully human, but rather a fetus or some other euphamism - it is an easy distinction to make. But most pro-lifers say they do not believe that.
It always strikes me as a contradiction that pro-lifers quickly condemn those who commit violence against abortionists, yet in the scenario I described above, they would be the first to cheer the person who killed the individual killing children.
Again - if we truly believe babies in the womb are just as alive as babies out of the womb and deserving the same protection - what is the moral difference?