Comments:Controversial U.S. abortion doctor shot dead in Kansas church

There is nothing good about nor which can come from this story. An ELCA church goes apostate on God and allows a baby murderer to be an usher, violating with giddy pride the command in the book of Titus for church leaders and overseers (including ushers) to be above reproach. (Titus 1:7) And they do this in spite knowing fully that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20.) As if Reformation of Witchita giving all Lutherans a bad name weren't bad enough, things get worse. Some nut vigilante takes the law into his own hands to deliver his own form of justice to the butcher; and in a place where (perhaps-not-so)-innocents are endangered.

This all seems to happen conveniently around the same time that Janet Napolitano and DHS consult with SPLC to accuse all who oppose abortion of being "extremists," equating them with the Taliban (Which is absurd!) I'm not ready to point a finger at just one individual or organization yet, but it seems to me that somebody wants a second American civil war to happen, and will do anything to start one. Without some sort of resolution to the contrary, it seems more and more likely that abortion is the new slavery and the butcher-doc's killer is the new John Brown.

Edit: Actually, the verse that says one should be "above reproach" is in 1 Timothy 3. My apologies. The emphasis is on many of the same things mentioned in Titus, but 1 Timothy 3 goes further: "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect..." (8), "... They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons." (9 & 10, NIV)

It seems as if the ELCA church he served at did not test him on whether or not he saw any worth in the teachings in Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." If his practice ignored that teaching, then how did he pass the test unless the congregation didn't care (or made extra-biblical rationalizations)?

Moreover, if he was dealing under-the-table money with politicians, as he was accused of frequently, then did he really have the right kind of reputation to be an usher?

It may be unlawful for a vigilante to kill him, but it is also wrong of the state to violate due process (as the Judicial Branch did in 1973 by legalizing abortion while circumventing Congress) to sanction his unrightful killing as a way of life. Clearly, there are no winners in this case. The state does have the right to not bear the sword in vain, and "turning the other cheek" does not mean not defending one's self, friends, family, etc from others' tort. It means not avenging every single insult or mishap. In self-defense and in punishing murderers lawfully through due process, there are times and places where it is worthwhile to kill.

But what Tiller's assassin did is none of that. Remember the woman accused of adultery that was to be stoned? The crowd, by the Torah, had every right to say that if she was adulterous as accused, then it was wrong. The Bible COMMANDS such judgment, based on the Word and not on petty human rationale. (John 7:24) BUT...it was no longer the job of the Jews to execute her. The Romans were the authority, and only they back then could call for her to be executed for adultery BY DUE PROCESS. The Jewish leaders wanted to trick Jesus into saying that they could deal with her through VIGILANTE murder. By being vigilante murderers, they would be doing something that Leviticus declared just as worthy of death as adultery itself! That's why they were told: "May he without sin throw the first rock." They knew if they were breaking the law through their vigilantism, then they were in the wrong, no matter how much she deserved to die (or didn't.)

Tiller's case is identical. The assassin threw the rock. He didn't care it was an act of vigilantism to make up for an impotent state that protects the blood of the guilty but not the blood of the innocent. He didn't see things that way. He just saw a man that needed to take the fall, and fired his gun with little extra thought. No due process. Therefore, due process will hopefully give the vigilante what he deserves.

--76.20.185.245 (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Foetus != baby. You don't kill a foetus but denature it. Dave420 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A fetus exhibits the characteristics necessary for life. To end its life it to kill it.  At 24 weeks and later (ie when Tiller performed his abortions), the fetus looks almost identical to a human infant.  The only major difference is its location, a few inches away from the outside world.  There have been miraculous cases of survival outside the womb at 24 weeks and later as well.

At conception, a new, unique organism with the full compliment of chromosomes is formed. All of the genetic traits are determined. In humans this includes gender, hair color, eye color, adult height, facial features, risk factors for diseases and disorders, and much more. Environment (nurture) can alter one or more of these characteristics before or after birth, but a fertilized egg at conception has the same genetic material (nature) as it does at maturity. It is also worth noting that the words "foetus" and "baby" have very similar orgins. They both refer to an animal's "young" or "offspring" and the only key difference is again, location. Even abortion providers have referred to their activies as "death" or "destruction" of the fetus.

Whether or not you support abortion is up to you. Do not, however, try to claim that abortion does not kill fetuses. Please pay a little attention to science when you make your arguments. 174.2.11.15 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Who ever left the above comment seems to be a little misinformed:

"'For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.' -- Titus 1:7 KJV"

Nothing here says anything about those lower than the rank of bishop. An usher clearly is lower than that so that argument from scripture is null and void if it is to be interpreted literally.

"'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse...' -- Romans 1:20 KJV"

This statement only seems to be about people who see no evidence of the existence of the god Jahova. Again, this person clearly does see some evidence or he wouldn't be involved with his church so closely.

I find it ironic that this man, who does provide a needed service, because in some cases abortions are medically necessary, is a Christian of any kind. This does not mean he deserves to die. Jesus sought to tell people to turn the other cheek rather than seek retribution. It is fundamentally against the tenets of Christianity to kill this man for the method by which he makes a living. What he has done, as a Christian man, is between him and god and as such other men need not meddle in this because in the end, he will supposedly answer for what he has done.

I find the killing of other human beings by other human beings to be beyond excuse for any reason. I am not saying what the abortionist did is right or moral (although it may, logically have been the right course in some cases) but neither is the act of the killer right or moral. It is an equal transgression. It will not lead to a civil war. People simply need to realize there is absolutely nothing worth killing for, and absolutely nothing worth dying for. -Eric 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right or wrong?
What goes around comes around. This man killed hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent and defenceless human beings in the womb. That kind of karma was bound sooner or later to catch up with him -- and it did. All the putrid "we denounce the cowardly act .. blah blah blah" I have been reading makes me sick. The man who did this was no coward, he knew exactly what he was doing and had the resolve of a tiger, and followed through, and even stayed his hand when two other parishioners tried to stop him -- he could have killed them too but did not. It's also clear he knew full well the consequences and did it anyway. Obama's weak statement shows his little world all in chaos over this -- what would you expect from a spineless ex-attorney anyway?
 * The guy who walked into a church and shot a doctor in cold blood was a murderer. Anyone who says he was right because of some religious bullshit needs their head examined. Christianity is, sans holy-moly-bullshit, basically worshipping some dude who was nailed to a cross around 2,000 years ago for suggesting people be nice to each other for a change. Shooting people ain't being nice. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a Christian nor do I accept any "religious bullshit". I personally think religion is nothing more than mass insanity and the bible a "book of fables".  But there is balance in the world and cause and effect, and this guy killed over 65,000 babies in the womb -- he got back exactly what he gave to this world.  Fuck "being nice" -- nothing you say, nothing I say, nothing anyone does matters AT ALL.  All of our culture and brain farts mean NOTHING.  We are nothing more than machines made of carbon and are disposable containers for DNA.  So take comfort in the thought that your life and anyone else means NOTHING and your fate and that of every person on this planet is to eventually die and be discarded as a disposable container for DNA -- which only cares about making copies of itself -- and that includes this turd who got exactly what he deserved.  Consider it this way.  One DNA template happened to recognize an aberrant DNA copy on the loose erasing and preventing other DNA templates from replicating, and activated in survival mode -- the result -- George Tiller, and his damaged and defective DNA template was erased.  Life preserves Life -- a simple fact of biology.


 * I think what's telling is that you assume the poster is Christian when he made no reference to Christianity in his post, and in fact referred to "karma" which is a concept entirely foreign to Christianity. For my part, I denounce this reckless violence, and while I think late-term abortions are wrong, I also think them less severe a wrong than murder. My intermediate views on abortion seem to peeve both sides whenever I wade into a debate on the subject. 209.30.89.135 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not reckless violence but a programmed survival response that chimes to my own DNA and that of most people geared towards reproductive success. I do not denounce or condone it.  Moral judgements mean absolutely nothing here -- the situation simply "is".    Homosexuals are in a similar category to George Tiller, but not nearly so dangerous to humanity as a whole.  At least in the case of homosexuals, their DNA has internally recognized it is damaged and unfit for replication and has turned the disposable soma towards a strategy to block reproduction.  And not surprising, pro-abortion and gay rights groups go hand in hand.  Damaged DNA clustering together ....


 * You sound like some kind of kook. You're condoning murder because of some strange, pseudo-scientific nonsense about sentient DNA molecules turning people gay. I think further conversational engagement with you would prove pointless. 209.30.89.135 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A kook with an IQ approaching 200. It is pointless to engage with Neanderthals who are incapable of grasping the ultimate truth.  The truth that our destiny is to reproduce until our DNA is perfected to the point we overcome our self imposed limitations, become biologically immortal and can at last conquer the stars and spread our seed across the cosmos.  Long way off near as I can tell.  Go back to your stone knives and bearskins.  :-)


 * Dude, seriously, this is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read. Our DNA is programmed to survive, and nothing more.  Not perfect itself yadda yadda.  I'm wondering if the online test that gave you such a high IQ score also told you which Battlestar Galactica character you are.  Only idiots without a real defense to their position start a pissing contest with the outdated IQ score. 192.101.252.103 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you be so kind as to send your name, address and passport details to the UK border authorities? We ban racists, including homophobes, from entering the country. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's that programmed response activated within the damaged DNA of an inferior and damaged DNA copy threatened by a masculine and virile heterosexual man.  You know, everytime I fly to Europe I avoid Heathrow airport since you have to be bused between air terminal buildings and stand in three lines in and old shitty airport terminal where people are allowed to smoke all over the place with pictures of its old shrivelled Queen and her fornicating son who lives with another man's wife, Prince Charles the (alleged) pervert in chief.  There's also that dismal concourse of crappy shops where everything is priced at 10x the going prices for a coke even at US Movie theatre standards.  I usually fly directly into Paris or Düsseldorf and avoid the UK.   It's a sad little shitty country with United States "wannabee" envy and has stupid TV, and a dismal lifestyle. perpetual rain, bad weather, and you never see the sun.  Why on earth would anyone with any class want to visit such a cesspool of a country.   Things are getting worse there from what I hear as well.   As stated I fly around it anyway.  It reminds me too much of the dismal bus stops I used to see as a teenager while travelling by bus as a teenager in the American West -- a lot like West Texas -- and the people are about as friendly.  Ever wonder why most brits look alike?  From all the in-breeding and a small gene pool.  Kind of like happens on isolated islands in the Pacific....


 * I hardly find heterosexual men challenging. I am one. Unlike you, I'm not threatened by homosexual men either. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Just a sewer mouthed brit with a huge ego (like most self absorbed brits).  I never met a brit who wasn't a plastic two-faced phony and who would not hesitate to stab anyone in the back.  I have work to do today, see you around the universe.  :-)
 * Nah, Brits don't stab people in the back for being racist. They just put "Kick me, I voted BNP" stickers on their back. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * America (modern) was founded using that same genepool. Funny that.... 203.32.16.50 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:209.30.89.135, late-term abortion is not made available as a "lifestyle choice" it is usually for the health of the mother. The law defines what 'murder' is, there is due process, and it is part of your social contract that you do not take the law into your own hands and call yourself committing murder 'justice'.

You can argue against late term abortion, but - regrettably - you will be lumped in with the nuts who believe barrier contraception is a sin. However, killing doctors, threatening them with anonymous phone calls, and firebombing clinics are acts of terrorism. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again: foetus != baby. You don't kill a foetus but denature it. Dave420 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify
In all honesty, Brian, why should we trust Obama over plain reason as to what defines "murder"? If you read my above notes carefully, you'll note that I neither excuse the doctor nor his killer, and state my case as to why both were in the wrong on every level. Also, who's gonna lump me in with "nuts"? Napolitano herself, who is one to talk?

I believe anything unnatural that kills a zygote after it is formed is murder, even if it doesn't get implanted in the wall of the uterus. I do not feel that about those contraceptives which ensure that the zygote never forms. Those, at the very worst, are just cowardice, but that depends on the circumstances of the sex partners. More women die in botched abortions than have EVER died during childbirth. And modern medicine has been able to save the lives of both ever since the 1960's. My grandma was a nurse then, and has witnessed proof of this.

Even if the mother were endangered by complications, it is her duty like a pelican's to be willing to rip her own chest apart and die to protect her children. A woman unwilling to sacrifice herself for her infant children is a nature-derelict.

Abortion is never excused. Nor is vigilante murder of abortionists. Ever. - 76.20.185.245 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible Belt, what a nice place to live.
Violent pacification, Idiot. I always found it so funny that pro-life people can be so murderous. And just remember Jesus was a Jew. 203.32.16.50 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you need the logic broken down, it goes like this: Jesus laid down his life to save us all, Scott Roeder laid down his life to save the unborn. He doesn't care if he gets the death penalty. He goes into the plus balance after the first abortion that George R. Tiller doesn't perform (due to being dead himself). God will forgive him, if not applaud him. What else do you need explained? --SVTCobra 01:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I happen to live in the area and know that Tiller was not a sole practitioner at his clinic, just the founder. He had two other full partners working with him and it has been reported that a replacement has already been decided on. His murder will have no effect on operations. Also, the shooter won't be getting the death penalty as the murder does not qualify under Kansas' capital murder scheme.


 * Doesn't any one remember "Thou Shall not Murder!". It is amazing the Christian belief of forgiveness.  That means that I can do absolutely ANYTHING and god will forgive me. Awesome.  Sorry doesn't wash, Murder is Murder, Scott Roeder will burn in Hell. I wonder if god forgave Hitler? 203.32.16.50 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

hypocrites
If the far right Bible beaters talk about abortion being murder, then how do they justify this? Does this have an exemption? Hm. Violence doesn't stop violence. I wish hillbillies, "hockey moms", racists, the Eric Rudolph types and Fox News would understand that.


 * Maybe they don't justify this. Maybe they think it's heinous. You're putting words in their mouths while calling them names for a position that they haven't taken. That's intellectually dishonest. As for violence not stopping violence, that's a ridiculous platitude. History provides countless contrary examples. Hadrian's violent destruction of Judea stopped the violent slaughter of gentiles in the Bar Kokhba revolt, did it not? In fact, it stopped all violence in Palestine for an appreciable length of time, which didn't reemerge until the circumstances were much changed. I only give that example because it's something I've been reading about lately. Also, all the violence would indeed stop if someone took to the violent course of extinguishing humanity with nuclear weapons, would it not?


 * Sure, make all the arguments against violence that you want. I may well join them. But spare us all the nice seeming phrases that are patently untrue. If hillbillies, "hockey moms," and racists reject these, then perhaps their powers of reason are greater than I would otherwise have thought. 209.30.89.135 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Pro-Life
I feel this is horrible, despite the fact I am very pro-life myself, this doesn't help the cause of the pro-life movement, which is to be PRO-life. Taking the life of this man was wrong, even though he commited murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.19.124 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MY PRAYERS GO OUT TO THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM
I HATE HOW EVERY1 IS TRYING TO JUDGE SAYING THINGS LIKE WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND..THATS STUPID AND CHILDISH!!!! THIS DR DID HIS JOB..IS IT HIS FAULT THAT THE MOTHER DIDNT WANT TO DO HERS?? UM NO!!! HE DID NOT FORCE THESE WOMEN THEY MADE THERE OWN BED..LET THIS MAN REST IN PEACE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 * My prayers go out to the unwilling and unwitting victims of the verbal assault that is your message. All caps is bad, mmmkay? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)