Pro-Lifer: Tiller Killer’s Act was Pro-Choice

By The Christian Post on June 2nd, 2009

imagesbannerscp_120x60Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Michelle A. Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jun. 02 2009 08:45 AM EDT

Opponents of abortion, fearful of a public backlash, have strongly denied any connections to the suspected killer of the nation’s most prominent abortion provider.

Pro-life news site, LifeNews.com, ran a headline that read, “George Tiller Shooting Suspect Caught, No Connection with Pro-Life Groups,” while Dr. Richard Land, a spokesperson for the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, denounced the killing of the abortion provider as “unbiblical, unchristian and un-American.”

Across America, pro-life groups scrambled to distance themselves from Scott Roeder, 51, a Kansas man suspected of killing late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller Sunday morning.

Roeder was in jail Monday accused of fatally shooting Tiller while he served as an usher at his Lutheran church in Wichita, Kan.

Police records and an interview with his ex-wife suggest that Roeder’s action was heavily influenced by an extremist political group he was associated with. He was arrested in 1996 in Topeka because his car did not have a valid license tag, but instead had a tag stating Roeder a “sovereign” immune from state law.

Moreover, his trunk contained materials that could be used to make a bomb.

He was convicted and sentenced to two years of probation for the incident, and ordered to cut his connection with violent anti-government groups.

In an interview with The Associated Press, his ex-wife Lindsey Roeder said that his extreme anti-government views led to the demise of their marriage. She also said he became “very religious” but in an Old Testament “eye-for-an-eye way.”

She added, “He was very vocal about his anti-abortion views, but I never thought he’d go this far.”

On the pro-life Web site of Operation Rescue, someone under the name of Scott Roeder had posted comments that compared Tiller to a Nazi death-camp doctor. The comment said Tiller “needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.”

Operation Rescue, in response to Roeder’s arrest, stated that the suspect has “never been a member, contributor, or volunteer” with the pro-life organization. The Wichita-based group also pointed out that even though Roeder posted a comment on the group’s public forum, thousands of people, including those with pro-abortion views, also post on the site.

The face of those being aborted (Credit: X.Compagnion)

The face of those being aborted (Credit: X.Compagnion)

The group has strongly condemned the murder of Tiller and stressed that it only works to advance the pro-life movement through legal means.

Although dozens of pro-life groups have released statements and communicated to the media that they deplore the violent act, some have placed the blame on the rhetoric of conservative groups.

“The right-wing stations who are fueling this, they don’t recognize you can’t incite this kind of stuff,” said the Rev. Mark Thompson of Washington, D.C.’s Israel Baptist Church, during a vigil Monday night, according to The Washington Post. “It’s out of control.”

But Gingi Edmonds, a pro-life activist, argues Tiller was killed by a pro-choice act.

“Tiller’s killer was truly ‘pro-choice,’” Edmonds contends. “He believed in the idea that if a person’s existence troubles you, you have the right to kill them.”

Meanwhile, SBC’s Land stressed, “The murder of Dr. George Tiller is a human tragedy. Murdering someone is a grotesque and bizarre way to emphasize one’s commitment to the sanctity of human life. People who truly believe in the sanctity of human life believe in the sanctity of the lives of abortion providers as well as the unborn babies who are aborted.”

Pro-life advocates have called for legal justice to be carried out against Tiller’s murderer.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: News
Tags: ,

  • Bill Meadows
    I think DCM just made my point saying that it would be ridiculous for Pro-Life groups to endorse the killing of Tiller, even privately. DCM's reasons were because they would be seen as hypocrites and the Pro-Choice people would be handed a club to hit them on the head with.I thought it would simply be because pro-Life groups are against all murder

    It makes one ask are they choosing and parsing their words just right to protect their image and perception( as DCM implies), rather than showing outrage over a man putting a gun to anothers head and blowing his brains out.

    The other question is what good or purpose does it do to repeatedly state " I sure am glad he wont be killing babies anymore"or similiar like statements I have heard elsewhere. and seen on this blog.. I think what Roeder and Hiller both have done is wrong. Doesn't the entire sordid mess speak for itself. Does it help one thing at all, bring back all the innocent children lost or even restore Hillers life to make such statements.

    It seems rather obvious that Hiller wont be performing any more abortions. It is just a thought, but why not leave it at that.
  • DCM
    I didn't mean at all to say that pro-life groups were *merely* protecting their image. I was just observing that their cause has already suffered enough unfair setbacks without this latest event, and that there was no reason -- involving either public perception or private convictions -- that they should be glad it happened.
  • I don't want to put words in DCM's mouth, but we're talking about a couple of different angles from which the issue is views, both with some legitimacy. From a political perspective, it would indeed be ridiculous for pro-life folks to endorse the murder of Tiller. But acknowledging that political consideration does not in the slightest diminish the moral consideration that practically all pro-lifers agree on: you don't take the law into your own hands and kill someone who hasn't been found guilty of a capital crime.

    What good does it do to repeatedly state "I sure am glad he wont be killing babies anymore"? What good does it do to keep repeating how hot it is when working outside on a hot summer day? What good does it do to keep repeating that Adolf Hitler was an evil man? All are an acknowledgement of a heart-felt truth.

    Obviously the entire sordid mess doesn't speak for itself, or there would have long ago been widespread public acknowledgement that Tiller was a butcher who should have been legally stopped a long time ago.

    Error and immoral behavior should be condemned every time they rear their ugly heads; when they aren't, they eventually become acceptable (as they already have).
  • Bill Meadows
    The prolife groups are distancing themselves from Roeder because some have come close to endorsing what Roeder did. It's called tacit or behind the scenes 'he got what he deserved' sentiment. The classic is when someone says " Murder is wrong, but I am sure glad Tiller cant practice anymore".

    Their concern over the loss of Tillers life is simply overwhelming.

    Roeder also was noted to be very religious, anti or minimal government oriented and anti-abortion-all views usually held by extreme prolife groups and advocates. They would do well to keep distancing themselves from Roeder
  • DCM
    It would be ridiculous for pro-life groups to endorse what Roeder did, even privately. Firstly, because it would be blatantly hypocritical for them to do so, and they know it. Secondly, because acts like his hand the pro-abortion side a huge club to beat pro-lifers with.

    Pro-life groups have been unfairly tarred with the broad "clinic bomber / abortionist killer" brush for years already, and this will inevitably lead to more of the same. "Pro-choicers" are going to make the most of this opportunity to make their side look like noble victims.
  • Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people during his murderous career. If had been fingered at victim #10 as a murderer--but not arrested and convicted (let's say the evidence was overwhelming but he had escaped legal custody)--and some vigilante shot and killed Dahmer before he could be brought to justice (or before he could kill again), what would your reaction be?

    Would you, perhaps, condemn the murder and vigilante justice while being glad Dahmer couldn't kill anymore people? If you did, would you be endorsing what the vigilante did? Or would you only lament that Dahmer had been murdered?
  • DCM
    The pro-abortion element wants to use this event to close the debate. I say we on the anti-abortion side use this to open the debate even wider.

    If any "pro-choice" person is reading, here's some news for you: Believe it or not, us "abortion foes" are not out to endanger the life & health of women. We're not so much concerned about the abortions that are truly needed to protect the mother's life or health. We're concerned with the other 99-odd percent. It's because of those that the unlimited availability of abortion is more dangerous to women than its complete unavailability would be.

    This issue would not be nearly as controversial as it is if Planned Parenthood, et al, were willing to pay more than lip service to keeping abortion "safe, legal and rare." As their actual behavior shows, they're not concerned with women's safety or well-being; they're more than willing to break the law if it gives them more profit; and they want abortion to be as common as possible.

    Can you name even one small restriction or limit on abortion that Planned Parenthood would be willing to agree to? I didn't think so. "Rare" is the last thing they want abortion to be; actions speak louder than words.
  • You bring up some very good points, DCM.

    For example, South Dakota tracks a lot of information regarding abortions, including the reason the woman has an abortion. According to the 2007 statistics (the latest available), "life of the mother" made up a whopping 1.7% of the abortions...while "The mother did not desire to have the child” came in at a measley 83.2%.

    And even though we put pro-life bills to the voters in 2006 and 2008 that contained exceptions for the life of the mother (and more), Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates fought these bills tooth and nail with every lie and distortion of facts they felt could aid their cause.

    In truth, Planned Parenthood has never heard of the abortion they wouldn't support.
  • DCM
    Thanks for those statistics. I have to admit that the "whopping 1.7%" was higher than I expected, and the "measly 83.2%" was lower. I'd be interested in knowing what those figures are like for other states.
  • I apologize, DCM. I misstated that figure. The 1.7% was because "The mother would suffer substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued." There is no category listed on the stats for "life of the mother (not sure why), though the only other category it might fall in is the "Other" category (7.6%; so it would have to be part of that 7.6%). Every other category you could think of is listed: rape/incest, "The mother could not afford the child", "The mother did not desire to have the child", "The mother’s emotional health was at risk", "The mother would suffer substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued", Other and "Refused to answer" (0.0%). (http://doh.sd.gov/statistics/2007Vital/Abortion...)

    If you have the time to do the research on other states, a place to start might be the state Department of Health websites. I'm pretty sure few states have the level of oversight over abortion we do in SD, but there might be some that track these statistics. On our state DOH website they're listed under "Vital Statistics."

    If you do end up finding anything, I'd be interested in knowing, too.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »