It took a Kansas jury on Friday just 37 minutes to find Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller.
The prosecution said all along that this was a clear-cut murder case, and the defendant even admitted the crime. The defense wanted the jury to consider a voluntary manslaughter charge, which carries a much lighter sentence than murder. But the judge ruled against that.
Roeder testified that he believed abortion was murder and said he needed to stop it by killing Tiller, one of the few doctors who provided abortions later in pregnancy. Roeder did not deny any of the facts surrounding the May 31 shooting.
Kim Parker, one of the prosecutors, says she hoped the judge’s decision to not allow the jury to consider second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter resonated.
“Hopefully it sends a clear message that this type of conduct is clearly not justified under the law,” Parker said. “There is no place for this. There are no medals to be given for those who violate the rules.”
NPR – Jan. 29. 2010:
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#27
Why do you disbelieve that a fertilized egg is a human being? What else can it be? There are only four things that ever change: Size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Those four are constantly shifting from fertilization through birth to natural death, and there are no other substantive differences that could change it from “non-human” to human.
Besides which, you’re being silly when you claim that a complete organism like an unborn child is the same as a hair from your head. I mean, get real!
Murdering murderers is not allowed in the U.S. Killing in the name of God is not allowed either. Hopefully, his real punishment will happen after HE passes away. His example shames all those who purport to believers and followers of lord.
A REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST perhaps?
So when will the guy who ordered the ‘hit’ be arrested? When will BillO be sent to trial? Also in complicity are his bosses Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock. They should all share a cell.
If the death penalty doesn’t apply to Scott, who should it apply to?
Yet, I don’t hear the conservatives screaming for it in this case of blatant pre-mediated murder.
(Oh, crap I did it again… expecting moral consistency from the conservatives.)
>> little people murder is kewl said, on January 29th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
>> Its ok for women to murder little people.
Oh just stop it and grow up.
Abortion is legal. It is not murder. You very well know that.
You can personally BELIEVE it is murder, just the way PETA thinks eating a chicken is murder, but that doesn’t make it so.
#32
IMO a fertilized egg is no where near being considered life. If a doctor fertilizes an egg in a lab, he is not creating a life. A fertilized egg is potential life just as a sperm and an unfertilized egg are potential life. Both require a significant degree of outside assistance to become life. By your definition, a sperm should be considered life since in theory, the only things that ever changes are the same items you mentioned: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (which includes one more item: an egg).
Regardless of whether you agree or not, the fundamental issue is that there is extreme dissent as to when exactly life begins. With so much disagreement, it is better the leave the moral decision up to the mother and her doctor rather than impose the will of the State on everyone.
This guy should be punished for what he did. However I believe that he should be left to rot in a cell for the rest of his life. The death penalty would just make him a martyre in the eyes of those who believe like him. So let him rot.
As for the abortion issue. Pro-abortion advocates love to try and make this an issue of choice. However they don’t look at the choice of the father or the broader choice of having sex in the first place. So to say that this is purely an issue of choice is blatently false.
On the other hand, people are going to have abortions if they want to or not. Making it illegal is just going to put people in jail if not endanger their lives. Our current system helps create a safe environment for people to make the right decision for themselves. That is what our country is about. Giving people the option to live their lives as they see fit.
I however will try to impress upon my children to take responsibility for the choices they make. Including the idea that there is no way to guaranty that having sex will not get you pregnant. If you make the choice to have sex, you have to accept the responsibility of getting pregnant.
If the republicans had their way, women would be investigated by the FBI when they have miscarriages.
Thomas, #37
If a fertilized egg is only potential human life, then what turns it into real human life?
Hmm? Give me your best answer.
Carrie
If men had the capability to have the same circumstances happen to them, a safe, simple, discreet method of getting out of it would have been developed a long time ago. George Carlin said it best when he told you mental midgets, “you’re not pro-life, you’re anti-woman”.
#40
A period of gestation for which the precise length of time is in dispute.
If conservatives REALLY believed that life began at conception, they would do something to prevent the one million+ spontaneous abortions in America every year.
Instead, the pro-lifers let out a collective yawn when a million, maybe a million and a quarter, human babies die every year.
When I see pro-lifers advocating for massive funding of pre-natal care and research programs, I’ll believe their claims about their supposed reverence for the fetus.
#26:
“The fundamental issue with which you are grappling is that your opinion about what is considered a life, even a potential life, is far from universal.”
There’s no opinion in my argument at all.
It is a fact that at some point between fertilization and birth, the fetus becomes a human.
It’s also a fact that no one can point to the exact time that it happens.
As a logical consequence, some abortions are murders, and we really don’t know which ones.
You can’t argue against this, without injecting into the argument an opinion as to when a fetus becomes human.
I’m acknowledging that we don’t know. The desire to err on the side of caution is, I guess, an opinion. But it’s not an opinion about when life begins.
for those of you with the little dangly pieces and making grand statements against abortion….go play with those dangly things and amuse yourselves. You have no business trying to tell anyone it’s “murder”. You kill more sperm in your sock — so, stuff it.
This man should be put to death for killing another man, especially for killing him IN HIS F*CKING church, with kids, elders, and other people present.
The man is deranged and, he was spurred on by all you little dangly parts people saying “good work” and egging him on in this insane thinking. There is no god in any religion that condones this type of thing. Murder is something that religions try and repress.
A medical procedure to evacuate a uterus of a foreign growth — be it a tumour or a zygote is not murder. Pregnancy is a choice, not a sentence.
Oh forget it, go play with your dangles, it keeps your mind occupied.
#44
As a logical consequence, some abortions are murders, and we really don’t know which ones.
We are in agreement right up until this statement. In your opinion, some abortions are murders because of your personal belief of when life begins. If you believed that a fetus is not a human life until it leaves the birth canal for example, then no abortion is murder. If you believed that the destruction of a fertilized egg is murder, then all abortions are murder.
#46
Pardon, I agree with most everything up to the statement I mention in #46 except for this one:
There’s no opinion in my argument at all.
This man is another religious terrorist, like the ones involved in 9/11. He couldn’t get the country to adopt his religious views. The country has rejected his religious views on that particular subject. And rather than accept the democratic process, he has taken the law into his own hands.
And who knows, the religious fanatics may succeed. If they’re willing to sacrifice their lives, like the men who sacrificed their lives taking down the WTC towers, they may create a climate of terror in the U.S. so that no doctor will perform abortions.
As long as one side has people willing to sacrifice their lives, they’ll be tough to stop.
So all you wingnuts who say “Islam is bad, they kill people in the name of god and Christians don’t”. Time to STFU. All you can say is that Christian terrorists haven’t killed as many people as Islamic terrorists. Yet.
And yes, I know there are a few anti-abortion people who aren’t religious fundamentalists.
Thomas, #42.
I consider that a non-responsive answer.
Scientifically there’s really no discussion on this. Elephant life begins at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Turtle life begins at conception.
And human life begins at conception. Biologically there is no argument.
Whether or not you consider the baby in the womb a human being worthy of protection, you cannot deny that it is human life and it is being terminated by someone’s choice other than his/her own.
Period.
>> Carrie said, on January 30th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
>> Scientifically there’s really no discussion on this.
You wish!
I would guess that A LOT of scientists, doctors, biologists etc differ in their opinion whether full human rights should be given to a blastocyst.
Um, I said scientifically and biologically there is no argument that it is human life after conception.
Whether or not it is a person worthy of rights is not the realm of science. That’s the realm of morality.
Carrie
#49
You simply did not like my answer but my answer was quite accurate. If life begins at conception, then we can take a fertilized egg, drop into a mason jar and life will be created on its own, right?
Frankly, there is a great deal of disagreement and discussion both philosophically and scientifically and it starts with the definition of what exactly is meant by “life”.
Whether or not you consider the baby in the womb a human being worthy of protection, you cannot deny that it is human life and it is being terminated by someone’s choice other than his/her own.
That is your opinion. I, along with the majority of the scientific community, disagree and that is the fundamental issue: we disagree. Whether you care to admit it, not everyone agrees with your point of view.
#51
Um, I said scientifically and biologically there is no argument that it is human life after conception.
And you would be wrong. There are numerous people that disagree with this point of view. That is the point.
#51 Carrie
“Um, I said scientifically and biologically there is no argument that it is human life after conception.”
You sure did and you are absolutely wrong!
I won’t bother to argue with you because you are already convinced that you are right. Come back when you have an education in Molecular Biology.
Scientifically and biologically a fertilized egg is human life. So is an unfertilized egg. So is a lump of cancer cells. So is a man’s hair root. All have human DNA.
A fetus is not a baby. The proper term is fetus right up until the umbilical cord is cut. Once the umbilical cord is cut the baby is no longer dependent upon the mother and thus is a person.
While premature babies usually survive, it is extremely rare that fetuses with even a small chance are aborted. Such cases are reserved for the most dire cases where the continued pregnancy will seriously harm the mother.
As Thomas points out, putting a fertilized egg in a jar to develop is no more murder than is an abortion.
This was not a Capitol indictment so he is not facing the death penalty. He will receive Life. The question is if he would ever be eligible for parole. Doubtful but possible.
So the baby in the womb is not a person until after it is fully born and the cord is cut. Is that your argument?
I wonder then, would you do away with all laws on the books today that prosecute certain killers with an extra murder if they kill a pregnant woman?
If you’re being consistent, you should.
But one more thing: A baby certainly is dependent on others for its survival after it is born. How else does it get its food, etc.?
So the baby in the womb is not a person until after it is fully born and the cord is cut
You mean that a fetus in the womb is not a person (or baby) until after the cord is cut. I do not personally believe that but some do. However, I also do not believe that a fertilized egg is a person. The whole point of choice is that there is great dissent of opinion about when exactly life begins.
I wonder then, would you do away with all laws on the books today prosecute certain killers with an extra murder if they kill a pregnant woman?
I cannot speak for Mr. Fusion, however, I would. Let’s make sure we prosecute people that murder beings we know to be human instead of playing around with double murder for pregnant women. If a someone kills a single person, the punishment should sufficiently severe that tacking on the fact that they killed more than one person (or potential person) would be superfluous.
A baby certainly is dependent on others for its survival after it is born. How else does it get its food, etc.?
Yep. However, exit from the birth canal and having the umbilical cord cut represent clear lines of delineation on which everyone can agree. It has nothing to do with degrees of dependency per se. It has to do with consensus.
My values tells me that murder is wrong, regardless of the outcome being someone that is guilty or innocent. However this seems to be a case of judging someone for making a choice to kill someone, and because it’s a legal definition of what he did was illegal, he should pay the price for his actions. Just because we “legally” allow someone to terminate a life, doesn’t make it right. Just because a court says you can, doesn’t me you aren’t a murderer.