Liberals: Aborting Logic
Taylor Nelson
Issue date: 2/3/10 Section: Final Approach
In the news last week, we all read the compelling story of how Scott Roeder was convicted of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller. After reading the facts, it is clear that his case had no contestable points -- Roeder openly admitted to not only killing the doctor, but also to premeditating the murder. Throughout his testimony, Roeder defended his actions, raising the point that Tiller was one of the few doctors in America that performed "late-term" abortions. We can all agree that premeditated murder is never a viable option, and what Scott Roeder did was wrong. The law should convict criminals and it did its job by sentencing him to prison.
My problem is this: not only am I pro-life (pro-baby), but the concept that late-term abortions are protected under the law is completely unacceptable to me. The concept that an almost fully-developed baby is being scooped out and killed makes me sick to my stomach, and I can quite easily see Scott Roeder's point of view. Now, I'm not going to contest the righteousness of "standard" abortions -- scraping out a bunch of cells is much different than scraping out a baby that could have survived in neonatal care.
Picture this: you see a man walking around the nursery in the hospital. He's weaving between the cribs of newborn babies, behind the glass, as loving parents look at their new children, and he pulls out a baseball bat. Now not to worry folks, he's a doctor, and the mom really didn't want the baby anyway. Imagine seeing the "doctor" repeatedly kill babies, and hide behind the law, making him immune to prosecution. Now the concept of taking his life doesn't seem so alien, does it? The thought that this man had to be stopped isn't such a stretch of logic, is it? I almost feel bad for Scott Roeder; George Tiller was an evil man, and someone had to stop him. Unfortunately for Scott Roeder, he cannot be the hero -- he must be prosecuted by the full force of the law. But do I honestly believe that he will burn in Hell for it? I don't know, but again let me reiterate that I do not condone murder.
My problem is this: not only am I pro-life (pro-baby), but the concept that late-term abortions are protected under the law is completely unacceptable to me. The concept that an almost fully-developed baby is being scooped out and killed makes me sick to my stomach, and I can quite easily see Scott Roeder's point of view. Now, I'm not going to contest the righteousness of "standard" abortions -- scraping out a bunch of cells is much different than scraping out a baby that could have survived in neonatal care.
Picture this: you see a man walking around the nursery in the hospital. He's weaving between the cribs of newborn babies, behind the glass, as loving parents look at their new children, and he pulls out a baseball bat. Now not to worry folks, he's a doctor, and the mom really didn't want the baby anyway. Imagine seeing the "doctor" repeatedly kill babies, and hide behind the law, making him immune to prosecution. Now the concept of taking his life doesn't seem so alien, does it? The thought that this man had to be stopped isn't such a stretch of logic, is it? I almost feel bad for Scott Roeder; George Tiller was an evil man, and someone had to stop him. Unfortunately for Scott Roeder, he cannot be the hero -- he must be prosecuted by the full force of the law. But do I honestly believe that he will burn in Hell for it? I don't know, but again let me reiterate that I do not condone murder.
Be the first to comment on this story