Scott Roeder Confesses To Killing George Tiller
Scott Roeder has confessed to killing Kansas abortion provider George Tiller.
The 51-year-old Kansas City man told The Associated Press in a telephone call from jail Monday that he plans to use the so-called necessity defense at his trial.
Roeder contends the killing of George Tiller in May at a Wichita church was justified to protect the lives of unborn children.
His confession comes as abortion opponents across the nation release a new “Defensive Action Statement” arguing for the same force to protect the unborn as is justified to protect born children. The 21 signers want jurors to be allowed to consider that defense at Roeder’s Jan. 11 trial.
Among the signers are Eric Rudolph, James Kopp and Shelley Shannon — all serving prison time for targeting abortion doctors.
The best thing about the Neil Boortz show is you can talk about anything you want except one topic – abortion.
Somehow, if this guy gets the death penalty I don’t think the conservatives will be outside the prison on execution day celebrating and tailgating like they usually do…..
themadvoter Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
In the state of Kansas, Roeder cannot be put to death for assassinating Dr. Tiller. http://roederwatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-no-death-penalty.html
burqa Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Even if he could, though, I don’t think we would see the celebrating like we’ll be seeing in Virginia when John Allen Mohammed is executed, for example….
Debby Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:38 am
BTW burga. Thanks for your posts on another thread. You sold a book. Now I have to get it, Dying to Win. Terrorism is a sad subject but one that affects us all and I think it would be helpful to learn more since it doesn’t seem to go away and has no boundaries.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
It’s about as anti-American as anyone can get, because it throws the rule of law into the toilet.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
See, Roeder and the other killers don’t get it…the whole thrust of the anti-abortion movement is the understanding that life is sacred and should be protected…from birth until death.
Unborn children ARE sacred, because they’re human beings. Trashy doctors who kill almost-born children ARE sacred, because they’re human beings.
burqa Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
When is it ethical to take a life, flap?
TDro319 Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“When is it ethical to take a life, flap?”
During an unnecessary war, of course. Flap was a great cheerleader for the slaughter in Iraq. But he doesn’t refer to the killings as “taking a life”. That’s way too harsh. Murders perpetrated during a war for profit are referred to as “collateral damage”.
flap Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
“When is it ethical to take a life, flap?”
If your life is threatened, you would ALLOW yourself to be killed? Would you allow your FAMILY to be killed if they were threatened? It’s unethical to take the aggressor’s life in those circumstances?
Are you saying it’s never ethical to take a life? Of course it’s ethical in certain circumstances. Taking human lives in a premeditated, targeted fashion is immoral. Murder is immoral, whether it’s in the womb or infants or children or adults.
“Flap was a great cheerleader for the slaughter in Iraq.”
Hey, noobcake, you were a cheerleader for the slaughter during WWII. Your argument against abortion is zilch, nada…all you can do is say that other people are for certain wars, and YOU yourself are for certain wars. That’s hypocrisy.
TDro319 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“If your life is threatened, you would ALLOW yourself to be killed?”
WTF are you talking about?!? Do you mean if I was pregnant and it was either my life or the fetus’ life? Easy choice.
“Taking human lives in a premeditated, targeted fashion is immoral.”
What do you think the Iraq war was?
“you were a cheerleader for the slaughter during WWII.”
LOL! That would’ve been a great trick, since I wasn’t even CONCEIVED during WWII yet, you noobcake.
flap Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“WTF are you talking about?!?”
Don’t “WTF” me. WTF to you…burqa asked when it was ethical to take a life. It’s ethical in certain circumstances.
“What do you think the Iraq war was?”
Sorry, I have to parse my words carefully since you love drawing the inappropriate analogy between killing people that we perceive to be evil versus innocent life in the womb. Taking INNOCENT human lives in a premeditated, targeted fashion is immoral. Killing those who seek to kill us isn’t immoral. Now, whether you agree that Iraq posed an imminent threat…that is certainly debatable. You disagree, which is fair enough. I go back and forth. I don’t think we should have stayed in Iraq.
“you were a cheerleader for the slaughter during WWII.”
Excuse me, would have been and still do support that slaughter that occurred. I hope your mother wasn’t pro-choice, because you might have been aborted. But you were a fetus so it was okay to kill you.
Noobcake.
burqa Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Sorry, flap, but answering a question with a question is not an answer.
This is something they asked us the first day of a class I took on ethics.
The answer was it is justified to take a life in order to prevent the loss of another life, whether it is your own or someone elses.
Let’s narrow it down to the subject at hand.
By the standard I just gave, was Roeder justified in killing Tiller or not?
TDro319 Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Hmmm. It’s common knowledge that the same people who accuse others of being “trashy” are pretty “trashy” themselves. It’s called “projecting”.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
are you projecting now?
flap Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Yes, TDro, I’m trashy because Tiller was murdering infants and I recognize the immorality of it. TDro, between the two of us you’re the only one who sanctions the “privacy” right of preborn murder, bro.
Have you ever held a dead baby in your hands? Do you understand what human life is, or are you more concerned with CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE! Roe v. Wade reigns eternal! “REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS” AT ALL COSTS!
I’ve reread my embryology books and, darn it, TDro, human life still exists in the womb.
Debby Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Flap, although I am pro choice, I understand and respect your pro life stance, to a point. Never, in any situation, is it okay for a person to take the law into their own hands and issue the death penalty to another person because they violate anothers personal moral code. There is no defense or justification for that.
TDro319 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“are you projecting now?”
Wow! That’s the best you have, Guido? You’re really slipping buddy.
flap Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“Never, in any situation, is it okay for a person to take the law into their own hands and issue the death penalty to another person because they violate anothers personal moral code.”
I agree with you, Debby. I do NOT support Roeder’s actions and I do not condone them. He should be punished appropriately.
If abortion laws are to be changed, violence is certainly not the answer. That goes against the “pro-life” position.
TDro319 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“Tiller was murdering infants and I recognize the immorality of it.”
Did he force abortions on these expectant mothers, the way Busy forced his way into Iraq?
And, as a matter of fact, I HAVE held a dead baby in my hands – he was 2 YEARS OLD. And yes, I DO know what human life is. The question is, do you?
If Roe V. Wade was overturned, you’d be willing to let expectant mothers seek out illegal abortions and increase their chances of dying from botched jobs? You’re sick!
Don’t think for one minute that if abortion is illegal, women will stop getting them. Everybody thought the same thing about illegal drugs. And today the illegal drug trafficking business is not only booming, it’s expanding at astronomical rates.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
TDRO:
That’s not a good comparison.
If we manage to keep women tied at our homes, taking care of the housework etc, and with no money to seek out illegal abortions, the drug business concept you used wont extend to illegal abortions.
Drugs are used by EVERYBODY. Tough to tie everybody down, surely its easier to tie just the women down.
TDro319 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
You’re right karthiks. I never thought of it that way. Hey! Maybe the repubs will submit a new law making it legal for husbands to beat their wives into submission. Some of those housewives can be pretty obstinate and might try sneaking out to get an abortion.
The only way to keep them thar women in line is to beat the s**t outta ‘em when they get a lil’ rabbit in their blood.
flap Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Karthik, and TDro, can you provide a justification to me why infants cannot be murdered? How, in your minds, do you draw a distinction between a newly born child versus an almost-born child? Where is the scientific logic? Womb = removal of humanity?
Abortions have always persisted despite laws. So has human trafficking. So has child abuse. Doesn’t mean it should be legal because it persists. Think of abortion as the ultimate child abuse, which it really is.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Unborn children is an oxymoron.
A baby, by definition, is a NEW born.
Prior to that it was a fetus.
The side of an argument that has to re-define words for there argument to make sense automatically loses that argument.
Debby Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I think it is more than the defining of words. There is a deep conviction and belief on both sides. I hear some pro-lifers believe they could no more end the life of a one month fetus than a one month new born. They are deeply and spiritually connected to the experience of life and the process of creation, believing, it is no less a crime to kill a child in the womb, than a New Born Child. I understand that, having given bith and cherishing the process of creation of Life. I also think there are people who jump on, to protest, because it is an avenue to exercise control, hate, judgement or violence against women and those that help them in difficult situations. And there are difficut situation. I don’t need to list them because we all know them. I understand and have deep empathy. We cannot change a women situation faced with medical problems, rape or incest but I think we can help women to choose life that are faced with horendous economic difficulty, by being more supportive and less hateful if she is in need of economic support. I don’t usually like to get into this discussion but this thread, tonight, changed my mind. I’m sure I added nothing new!
TDro319 Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I have nothing against people who are anti-abortion, but most of these so-called “pro-life” people are also pro-war.
My question is this: why is the life of a fetus worth more than the life of a post-born Iraqi baby? Do you think Iraqi mothers feel nothing when they hold the remains of their slain 4 year old toddler?
flap Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Pro-life” is a dumb pep rally term. I’m against abortion.
The life of a fetus is NOT worth more than the life of an Iraqi baby. I agree. Human life is human life. All the same. Saddam Hussein gassed a lot of people in his death chambers. Did those lives have value, TDro? The people that Saddam Hussein would have been torturing now…did those lives have value? Look, I don’t like OUR soldiers or ANY civilians being killed. I don’t like war.
You were pro-WWII, and lots of civilians and babies died during that war. So don’t give me the crap about how I’m “pro-war.” No one is “pro-war.” War is necessary at times. That’s one of the main points of government…defense. I’m not a huge fan of the Iraq War, but it’s easy to have 20/20 hindsight.
I have nothing against people who are for abortion, but most of those people are also against the death penalty and against war. Makes no sense. Let’s allow killing of the INNOCENT life but preserve potential bad guys. Kinda backwards.
burqa Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
A lot of them are also pro-death penalty.
I think the whole idea has much less to do with how they value life but has more to do with a deep-seated need to appear more moral than others.
This is just a pretext to do and the fact they appear hypocritical does not phase them one bit.
There is something in their head that drives them to where they HAVE to be seen as being super-moral by others. It’s as if there is something they are trying to hide or cover up.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I thank the great Ron Bennington for summing this up beautifully.
The anti-abortion people, with few exceptions, do not really believe it is murder.
If you came to my door and told me there was someone on the other side of town who was murdering little kids all day long and no one was doing anything to stop it, I would grab my guns and join you in going down there because it is justifiable to take a life in order to save others.
But the only people on the anti-abortion side who really think it is murder are Eric Rudolf, Roeder, and a couple of others.
The rest are just putting on an act to try to appear morally superior to others. There is nothing behind their rhetoric, no strength to their convictions. They are willing to sit there and watch what they claim is mass murder going on right in front of their eyes and they do nothing about it. They have been watching what they claim is the murder of millions take place right in front of them and all they do is reach for the teevee channel changer.
The reason why is they do not really believe it is murder, otherwise they would react the way a normal person would react to seeing murder take place, especially if they have guns.
But they don’t.
Why?
Because they do not really believe it is murder….
November 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Saddam Hussein gassed a lot of people in his death chambers. Did those lives have value, TDro?”
Apparently you don’t think so since you supported Bush’s war that not only matched the number of Hussein’s murders, but exceeded it by thousands. Those included American lives (yep. support the troops-to their deaths).
And once again, nimrod, I wasn’t around during WWII, so don’t give me that crap that I’m pro-WWII. We were ATTACKED by Japan during WWII (a little history lesson for you). We weren’t attacked by Iraq on 9/11. The Iraq war was simply a war for profit. And if you think Bush’s war for profit was “necessary”, you are either very stupid or greatly misinformed.
And another thing. You’re willing to allow the killing of potential GOOD guys (innocent until proven guilty) over a fetus???? Kinda f**ked up logic. But then again, we expect that from you “save the fetus/kill the child” types.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm