Thursday, 14 January 2010

I Fail To See The Problem Here…

The tense standoff in America between extreme anti-abortion protesters and doctors who provide abortions has been ruptured by a judge's ruling in Kansas that the killer of a doctor will be allowed to argue in court that he believed he was justified in trying to save unborn children.
Yes, and..?
The ruling spread dismay among abortion clinics across the US and warnings that it would encourage further violence. Anti-abortionists, however, hailed the decision as a step to natural justice.
I fail to see the reasoning here; this loon will have his day in court, and then he’ll be reminded by a jury of his peers that it doesn’t matter what bizarre rationalisation you’ve invented for yourself, murder isn’t how philosophical disagreements are resolved in a civilised society.
Judge Warren Wilbert dismissed prosecution objections and refused to bar Roeder from presenting to the jury his belief in the legitimacy of violence.
This eminently sensible, not to say just decision, has gone down like a cold cup of sick with the various factions plugging abortion:
"This is absolutely insane," said Charlotte Taft, director of the Abortion Care Network, which represents about 70 independent clinics. She said her members were "highly afraid" that a courtroom diatribe by Roeder could spark copycat acts.
Why..?

Is he some known, charismatic orator? Does he have strange, hypnotic powers like some deranged Derren Brown?

What is everyone so afraid of? They are just words. This is the land of the free, after all…

The murdered man’s lawyer has also got in on the act:
In legal papers, Thompson has also ridiculed the idea that Roeder should be allowed to plead voluntary manslaughter, saying it was equivalent to permitting a terrorist to argue in court that they believed they were duty bound to kill a soldier to protect civilians dying in Iraq.
They can argue that if they want. Why not?

It’s clearly not a legitimate reason, and it’s down to the prosecution to ensure the juries know that.

7 comments:

Martin said...

I have never got my head round how these anti abortionists, who call themselves 'Pro Life', but then go out and Murder someone.

I would like it if they could explain it to me.

Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

You don't understand. He has committed an offence against political correctness. No defence of such a ghastly act is possible, so wasting the court's time in this way, and attempting to influence the jury, cannot be permitted.

teacher.paris said...

But all those fine French Resistance assassins who murder German soldiers for their uniforms sake were saints. Whereas as putting down a self acknowledge murderer of babies is bad, bad, bad.

Stewart Cowan said...

Interesting. As you stand before the judgment seat of Christ, as we all will, would you rather face the music having killed one abortionist or dozens of unborn humans?

JuliaM said...

"I have never got my head round how these anti abortionists, who call themselves 'Pro Life', but then go out and Murder someone."

Me neither!

"He has committed an offence against political correctness. No defence of such a ghastly act is possible..."

Indeed. At least over in the States, they have some judges who still know what they are there for, though.

"As you stand before the judgment seat of Christ, as we all will, would you rather face the music having killed one abortionist or dozens of unborn humans?"

Difficult to say, since I don't believe I ever will.

I don't know how you could face yourself in the mirror having done either, though.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Stuart,

Isn't that rather the business of their (generic) individual consciences than yours? I am not aware of anybody being forced to work in abortion clinics?

Different people have different beliefs about when 'human' life begins. The church, in more sensible days when infant death was tragically commonplace, used "quickening" rather than conception.

Of course the accused should have the right to explain themselves in court - I don't know enough about the American system to know if they have the same distinction between pleas in defence and pleas in mitigation that we have here.

Krauser said...

Of course the pro-abortion mob are against him defending himself in court. Because then he might be to express his opinion and that's a thought crime. The Left can only sustain itself by denying it's opponents the right of debate.

Not that I think he should get away with murder, mind.... but these pro-abortion shrieking harpies think they should be supported in their baby killing without any opposition AT ALL.