I am not concerned with that, to be honest.
I am just pointing out that while the doctor was preforming what you and I would consider to be immoral late term abortions; that does not give the right to any other person to go up to him and shoot him in the head.
The law is very clear - abortion is legal (whether you agree with it or not) and walking up to another person that has different morals than you and allegedly shooting them in the head (for whatever reason) is illegal.
A person may feel pornography is immoral, but it is legal (adult pornography to be clear), so does that give another person who feels those people participating in porn are immoral, the right to attack or murder them?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice....shame on me.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
I was playing ScottD's and Redress's logic against itself. I was not asserting my own argument.
If one has to be convicted of a crime to deserve a punishment, then Redress and ScottD were wrong to assert that Scott Roeder deserves a punishment as he has not been convicted.
If it is acceptable to assume Scott Roeder deserves punishment without conviction, then it is also acceptable to assume Dr. Tiller deserved punishment without conviction.
Their arguments were contradictory in that they failed to abide by their own requirements.