prolife folks should agree that abortionist tiller should have been shot

My opponent's comment comes a day after she posted her counter-argument. I'm having a hard time believing she "accidentally" hit accept too early. But never let it be said that I am one to stifle intellectual discussion on the basis of a technicality. I'll still rebut the arguments posted in the comments section. "it's not about law per se, it's about the moral thing to do. so why bring up the idea that im being hypocritical? "Because if it is about morality, and not law, your first argument (that what he did was unlawful) is meaningless. You trying to justify his murder by saying "he broke the law", while simultaneously saying "it's not about what's legal", is hypocrisy. "too many children? they can always adopt. even if they couldnt, they are responisble for having the child, particluarly not aborting earlier when itd be more morallly gray. "The problem is, I have presented a clear-cut case for why it is morally justifiable to do so (self-defence). A case which you did not contest. "also u didnt address the rock concert example"I did, in that I provided a moral argument for why abortion is alwyas justifiable, under any circumstance; self-defence. An argument you did not dispute, which means you dropped it. "but as said, she had plenty of time to abort earlier when more morally gray, and she is responsible for the conception so she does not have absolute right here. "1) How do you know it was her who was responsible for the conception?2) At what point does the mother lose sovereignty over her own body? Consequently, at what point do we, as human beings, lose sovereignty over our own body? Is there a point in time where it is okay for me to rape you, because you've lost soveriengty over your body? Or to take, against your will, your bodily organs? I propose there is never sucha point, as allowing such a point would lead to barabric and disatrous moral results for society. "you say society cant do this. .. but it always has and must sometimes by necessity sometimes. civil war, revolutions, defending others etc. .. killing is sometimes necessary. "You say society has always killed, but that does not justify the killings it has done. Further more, saying "people kill in war" does not negate my claim that "the only just time to kill is in self-defence". After all, at one point or another, all sides of a war are killing "in self-defence". "you didnt address the two year old hypothetical. almost everyone would agree that should be a moral necessity to defend them. "Because they are a living child, no longer infringing upon someone's bodily sovereinty. This is not comparable to a fetus, which is. "the only distinction you could make is body soverignty arguments. but if u do make this argument. .. . how is it not her responsibility that the child was conceived, and how not her fault she did not abort sooner when morally grayer? "Whether or not it was her hoice to concieve the child, doesn't change the face that she should be able to boot it out when she wants. If I invite you into my house, does htat mean I have no right to tell you to leave, and force you out of my house, if you choose not to go or are incapable of not leaving? "i could see if he did them for trivial reasons at a point where it's legal, and for nontrivial when it's not illegal. the only thing that is not trivial and not the mom's life, is a deformed baby. i could understand if that was the reason he did them, i may need more information. .. . it sounds like he was not this scrupulous. and we see he aborted at 26 weeks for too many kids. far as i can tell, that's into 3rd trimester and pushing if not illegal. not an expert, i admit" Once again, legality here is not the issue; it's the morality. And it was completely immoral, and logically unjustifiable, to murder this man, simply because he respected women's bodily sovereignty, and aborted their babies.