Religion is NOT a Defense

Scott Roeder

When Scott Roeder shot and killed a prominent abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, in a church last may, there was little doubt he was motivated by an ideological belief.

Of course, this irony, if not downright lunacy, was totally lost on Mr. Roeder: that killing an actual person is morally repugnant, even if the person he killed was someone that provided abortions.

I mean, let’s face it, the debate about when life actually begins will never end. We know that by now. It divides along too many deeply-held religious and philosophical beliefs. But it’s pretty clear that life ends, matter-of-factly, when someone callously shoots down another in cold blood.

This hasn’t stopped Mr. Roeder’s lawyers from coming up with a strange and unique defense, arguing that the defendant didn’t really commit first-degree murder, but rather a form of manslaughter, since he was defending the life of another—“pre-born babies,” according to Roeder.

It’s fairly elementary that there are certain times when a homicide may be justified, with the most typical occurrences being when one’s actual life is in jeopardy. In those instances, one can use deadly force against someone he or she believes is using, or is about to use deadly force.

Where Mr. Roeder’s trial is about to commence, in Wichita, Kansas, the law allows him that very defense, even if the belief in the need for deadly physical force is unreasonable, so long that person honestly believes that the circumstances warrant such an extreme measure.

Now pause. Breathe deeply. And think for a moment how incredibly insane that is.

I mean, if this killer is convicted only of manslaughter just because he felt he was saving something as ethereal as “the unborn fetus,” then religious zealots everywhere will be given nothing less than a hunting license to start picking off abortion doctors like deer in the woods.

There’s really no logical difference between Roeder’s argument and the argument that an inmate—that is, if Roeder is convicted and starts serving time for voluntary manslaughter—would be justified in killing Roeder himself, simply because that inmate held an honest but unreasonable belief that Roeder, when released, would kill another abortion provider.

I highly doubt that many would be clamoring in the defense of that inmate; in fact he’d be labeled a murderer.

I hate the use of the term “slippery slope,” but let’s say we’d begin a nasty descent downward if religion ever injects itself into this case.

Fact is, a fetus has never been scientifically deemed a life, which means we should never allow this as a justification to kill someone.

And it should stay that way until the day arrives when an about-to-be-aborted fetus jumps and screams, “Please, somebody help me, this doctor is trying to kill me!”