Self-explanatory sentencing
The only time we're allowed to hear the truth about abortion is when Scott Roeder states it in the middle of a court proceeding that was already being shown on TV. He's not much of a speaker, but his statement included all the relevant facts about partial-birth abortion.

Even then, we didn't get to hear all of it; Propaganda Factory #1 belatedly realized what was happening and interrupted before the end, cutting to some "expert" who told us that Roeder would get the maximum time because he "didn't show remorse."

That's right, idiot "expert". Roeder didn't show remorse because Roeder has a moral code. You don't have a moral code. Instead, you have the Pavlovian responses of a totalitarian. Any act currently defined by the regime as illegal requires remorse; any act currently defined by the regime as permissible requires celebration. The regime decrees it, you believe it, that settles it.

Destroying a mass killer is a serious act and an illegal act, but it is not an act that requires remorse. We didn't require remorse from the man who killed Jeffrey Dahmer. Then why should we require remorse from the man who killed George Tiller? The only difference is that Tiller's long career of killing innocent people was celebrated by the regime, while Dahmer's long career of killing innocent people was condemned by the regime.

This is not a moral difference, it's just a difference in licensing. Tiller's mass murder of innocents was wonderful because he was licensed by the regime to perform mass murder of innocents, while Dahmer's mass murder of innocents was horrible because he wasn't licensed by the regime to perform mass murder of innocents.

= = = = =

Language note: I wrote the above in painfully precise and verbose style because I don't want it to be misunderstood by assholes, and also because I'm seriously pissed on this point. When I'm mildly angry I'll cuss and growl, but when I'm seriously pissed I tend to speak with great formality and precision.
  ¶ 2:17 PM