So, here we are again. We're back on this topic because in my daily, obsessive scouring of the news, I found this story. Don't worry about the Fox News thing - I read news from many different sources, I swear. Anyway, back to my point...here's the story. Man Accused of Shooting Kansas Abortion Doctor Confesses to Killing This guy? Is one I'd list as a hero. Do I like the idea of killing someone? Oh, hell, no. But, I can say that I would kill in self defense and I would kill to protect an innocent, helpless baby from being killed. Or an old person. Wouldn't you? Now, I know, I know...the big debate all centers around whether or not a fetus is a baby. I say no, but that's just my own personal thought I figured I'd mention again. I believe it enough, though, that I think what Scott here did was misguided and wrong, no matter how genuinely he believes he was saving babies. And make no mistake, this man genuinely believes he was saving babies from being killed. So, ask yourself this - if (because we need a name) Joe killed some monster who was ripping apart a little newborn in a stroller, blood and little body parts flying, would you, in your heart, be okay if Joe shot that monster dead? I would be. And I'd stand up for Joe in a heartbeat, if anyone tried to arrest him for murder. Wouldn't you? I hope you would. So, what's the difference in what our imaginary Joe did and what Scott in this article did? I mean, after all, as I've said, no one really knows when life begins...we can only guess and speculate. Now, just to throw another thought into all this, Kansas, the state in which Scott shot the abortion doctor, has Alexa's Law to protect the unborn. Alexa's Law states that "an unborn child, meaning a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth, is defined as a 'person' and a 'human being' for the purposes of Kansas statutes against first degree murder, second degree murder, capital murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and numerous battery offenses..." So, if Kansas means this, if they *really believe this, why in the world is this man, Scott Roeder, being charged with murder? At worst, shouldn't it be only a weapons charge if his gun isn't legal? Or...and this is the big one, folks...is it just different for doctors to do the very same thing that some addict with a stolen gun might to do a pregnant woman in a home invasion, all because the doctor has a college degree and license to kill? Does state law negate morals? The Bible? "Thou shalt not kill"...unless the government licensing bureau says it is okay? Just something to perhaps, hopefully, make you go "hmmmmmm". Kansas says those are babies. By Kansas' own statute, their own legal definition, he killed someone who was killing babies and who, minus a license, would be charged with murder. He put his own life on the line to save the very beings Kansas says it is murder to destroy. He saved the very lives Kansas itself says are lives. So, tell me, is he a hero, at least in Kansas? Or not? I still vote yes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
Oh, AP, this is a really interesting debate. You're brave to bring it up! I do not force my beliefs upon other people but I also don't hesitate to state them. I very firmly believe that life begins at conception. In my eyes, abortion is murder, plain and simple. But is it okay to shoot a doctor that murders these babies? Good question. As much as I hate this expression, I'll use it anyway... two wrongs don't make a right. The Lord's commandment about killing goes both ways, no matter if you kill the doctors or kill the babies. This is a tough one, ain't so?
Post a Comment