As some of you remember, I never condemned Scott Roeder for killing the late-term abortion doctor George Tiller in the State of Kansas. My reasoning was that by killing the abortionist, Scott Roeder saved the lives of many unborn children. Once again, I was right. George Tiller’s abortion clinic has been shut down and women who want late term abortions no longer able to get them in this geographic part of the United States. Scott Roeder did what he felt was right and I agree with his objective.

The problem is that, though effective, the means to the ends in this case were not justified from my perspective. As I argued before, if every pro-life person started killing abortion doctors, nobody in the country outside of San Francisco would have the stones to provide abortions, thus eliminating people’s access to abortion and thus eliminating abortions in our country… minus San Francisco. The problem pro-lifers, including myself, have with this strategy is that we’re pro-LIFE. That means killing someone isn’t the pro-LIFE thing to do… even if in the long run thousands of more lives are saved by those killings.

Now for some reason, Scott Roeder didn’t have that problem that the rest of us do. Was he a psychopath? His family and the court didn’t seem to think so. Was he overcome with love for the children he was saving? Well, he threatened to kill the ushers in the church – which suggests to me that probably wasn’t the case. Still, the fact that he did it in a church suggests an absence of guilt, if not a sense of divine permission. Did the guy just think about the numbers too excessively and then use morality to explain what those numbers demanded? I really don’t know and it really doesn’t matter for anyone except Scott Roeder, who believes he’s done the right thing.

With that highly controversial bit said, there’s something in this country called “the law.” And the law says that you can’t kill someone who has killed and will kill more unborn children. The second they pop out, then you can kill them to defend the children. But in the womb, killing the guy who would kill the children is illegal. Agree with it, disagree with it – it doesn’t matter because it’s the law. Do I agree with the tax code? Hell no! But I adhere to it when it’s tax time. Do I agree that women should be required to wear tops while men aren’t? Hey, I’m a supporter of equal rights and women should have the right to not wear shirts, just like men. But it’s the law and women across the country (except in San Francisco) adhere to it.

Have you ever noticed how you only see Nancy Pelosi in Washington and never in San Francisco? Be thankful.

Likewise, it was against the law to kill the “baby killer” and just as the law requires punishment for not following the tax code (unless you’re a high-ranking Democrat), the law requires punishment for Scott Roeder. And to be honest, Roeder’s crime should have been punished with a lot more than 25 years. In fact, if you’ve ever read my position on the death penalty or have talked with me in person about the death penalty, you’ll know that I’m generally opposed to it unless the person has a violent ideology that can be spread to others who he will meet in prison and who will get out before him. In other words, although I won’t condemn Roeder, I say he likely deserved the death penalty instead of a mere 25 years.

Assuming he serves the full sentence, Scott Roeder will be 76 years old when he is released from prison. To be honest, that really doesn’t sit right with me. Although he’ll ironically be spending the next 25 years surrounded by criminals he’ll wish were aborted, he deserves to at least be spending the rest of his life surrounded by those people. 25 years just seems like too light of a sentence.