Posted on 06/07/2009 11:29:06 AM PDT by September
After reading numerous ‘Statements on the Death of George Tiller’ from high profile pro-life leaders which said ‘we must strongly condemn such senseless acts of violence’, ‘killing is never the answer’, and ‘anyone who is truly pro-life will be saddened by Dr. Tiller’s death’ I had to ask myself one question.
If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence? That would be unthinkable. He would be extolled as brave American hero who saved babies from a deranged mass murderer.
However after the shooting of Dr. Tiller I’ve learned most people, even those who are pro-life, do not speak well of individuals who stop abortion doctors with deadly force, even though these doctors are serial child killers.
Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?
The best I understand it is the children abortionists kill are the "undesirables" in our society, just like the Jews were in Hitler’s Germany. Human beings who are unwanted, dehumanized, and stripped of civil rights. Second, people do not speak well of someone who uses deadly force to stop an abortionist because it is legal for a doctor to kill these children, just like it was legal to kill Jews.
Although it was legal to kill Jews in Hitler's Germany it was not right, and the Nazis were murderers even though their laws vindicated them. Importantly, the doctors in the death camps were murderers not merely because a Tribunal said so, those doctors were murders because they committed widespread inhumane atrocities, barbaric crimes against humanity, and systematic state-sponsored extermination of millions of people.
Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. In the name of civility and in an effort to save children from mass murder at the hands of an abortion doctor I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.
Let us pray abortion will also be criminalized as the Holocaust is.
Caesar and Herod were mass murderers, and yet we are commanded in the New Testament to respect laws and authority.
If the founders believed that, there never would have been a United States. They broke the law and killed those who would stop them.
Exactly wrong.
The women procuring the abortions should be subject to a massive fine, as in incredibly massive, as a deterrent.
I am 100% against abortion and would accept it being taken out of the realm of the Supreme Court’s misclaimed jurisdiction and left to the states, because many would institute laws against it in the near term.
In the long term, I still want a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree.
They had the rule of law in Germany too didn’t they?
I am not clear on why dueling was eliminated. Anyone have an idea?
British civil administrators were frequent targets. Don’t know where you got the idea they weren’t. In the end they all shipped out to England and their friends went to New Brunswick.
The black middle-class has more than its fair share of those abortions. The poor keep their babies.
You might disagree, but what Dr. Tiller did, he personally did for good reasons, for the purpose of helping women who were in trouble and who could get help almost nowhere else...
Now fork over the $7,000 for the services, please.
No, up front, dammit!!
Laws that do not serve justice are not lawful — as Alamo-Girl so beautifully illustrates here. She wrote: "In the case at hand, the courts, media and pro-abortion side are careful to call the unborn child, even a viable child, a fetus — and the killing, a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. But dehumanizing the unborn does not make it so, nor does using a substitute phrase making killing any less than what it is."
You can't make an unjustice just by "reinventing the language" and waving the magic wand of specious legal arguments.
Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.
And it is precisely because we don't want MEN deciding what "other guys need killing" that we have recourse to divine law, which is the foundation of American justice. Murder, as defined in the Bible, is the willful taking of innocent life. Roeder's act was certainly willful. But was Tiller an "innocent life?"
Just askin' — a conundrum for your reflection.
There is help available at pregnancy centers in virtually every city.
Yes indeed we will.
But, if the laws are "unjust", should the masses continue to abide them?
Unjust laws rendered by unjust men foster anarchy!
With the same recourse for fathers in regards to those who kill their children by abortion?
it violates every moral principle upon which the Pro-Life message rests.
******************************************
maybe he is not “pro-life” ,, maybe he is “anti-abortion” ...
You go ahead and have your war of words using reason and principles and let me know how far that gets you... (oh I forgot ,, 36 years and nothing to show for it because you’re playing against opponents that don’t follow your pitiful little rules... maybe your first clue should have been them using the supreme court to create law!)
Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.
Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
Every person has his own idea of justice. There is certainly no consensus among "the masses" on abortion. Moreover we still live in a country where there peaceful means to change public policy. It is far more difficult than it should be when judges usurp power and put policy issues out of the hands of elected representatives, but it is still possible. Again, as far as taking the law into your own hands based on some self-percieved higher morality, that's the same justification used by the Unibomber, Earth First and the Amnimal Liberation Front. Or Al Qaeda for that matter. That can only justifiably be a last resort, when a broad support of the majority beleives there is no alternative. Otherwise, even if you win, it is simply a minority imposing their will by force. That's called tyranny.
Is REX LEX? Is the law king?
Ever since laws have been considered only man made they can
be changed. Killing a nearly born is not considered murder
in one epoch, but is in another.
Are there absolute rights and wrongs? Who was the last
guy who said “what is truth?”
We need some absolute truths, besides “party hardy”, or
“ you only live once, so go for the gusto” or “I felt like
it”. Otherwise anarchy, social, political and personal could
be our last reported location.
I’m not disputing that aspect of it. Of course I feel as you do. I have twins!
I’m willing to defend the innocent, but what would you have us all do? Is Roe v. Wade crossing the line? Of course!
I have to be here for MY kids. I can’t engage in activity that will take me from my children.
Find me a solution. I’m all ears (um, eyes)
Where do you draw the line. Who is deserving of execution, and who is not.
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.