Like abortion, Tiller's murder 'senseless act of violence' (But also see Created's comment about this column.)
Violence it certainly was, but is "senseless" really the right term? Some the "standard responses" (see Sarah Palin's in the column below) strike me as extremely inadequate.
Pro-life activist Randall Terry said of "the good doctor" that "he reaped what he sowed." Terry is not going to pretend that he's sad about Tiller's passing.
I am NOT IN ANY WAY a violent person. I can't say the same about George Tiller, who was responsible for approximately 60,000 abortions, many of them of the "late-term" variety. In reality, "late-term-abortion" is a euphemism for the eradication of viable human beings. Is such a thing "against the law?" If it's not, then "the law" is little more than a protective barrier for evildoers.
On my blog, I've been talking about disrespect for life throughout history . . . resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people (Rwanda, Darfur, the Soviet Union, Fascist Germany, Cambodia, Mao's China, and on and on).
"What is man that Thou art mindful of him?" The problem is that for so many dictators and the like man (i.e., humanity) isn't worth very much. I haven't mentioned the unborn yet, who appear to be victims of the general disregard for life.
Was Dr. Tiller anything but a criminal, an enemy of humanity? If so, reasoning with him or carrying a protest sign, does not seem to be quite enough. Those actions seem more like gestures designed to make the protesters feel good rather than to bring to an end what they believe are murderous actions.
Scott Roder, who allegedly shot George Tiller, apparently believed he was taking one life in order to save many. Was that in fact what Roeder was doing? If so, it casts his actions in a new light.
(As you'll see below in this column and the previous one I'm reprinting some of the many comments I've received on this subject.)