Gross ignorance that Violence begets violence--Re: Free Republic's "Paul Hill Execution" Threads

Free Republic ^ | 9/4/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp, Vice President, Catholic Family Assoc. of America

[Polycarp]

My anger over the pathological nature of "legal" baby killing and the individuals on these threads who see Hill's crime as somehow "worse" than that of the baby killers has led me to say things on these threads that I don't really believe, just to point out the rank hypocrisy and stupidity of certain posters on these threads.

I've made my points. I'll stop using bitter sarcasm and cynicism now and state clearly:

1)Hill murdered an abortionist, and deserved the punishment meeted out to him by the state. The state has the right, recognized in 2000 years of Christian moral theology, to impose capital punishment. But In all honesty, I have reservations about the death penalty.

2) Abortion may be "legal" but it is still a crime against humanity. Though it would be unjust to try them, by ex-post-facto prosecution once abortion is again made illegal, abortionists still must pay some measure of justice for their crimes. Revoking their licences and general social ostracizing would be minimum and insufficient justice.

3) Vigiliante "justice" and ex-post-facto law cannot be tolerated in a civil society. However, neither can judicial tyrrany and legislation by judicial fiat. Civil rebellion against judicial tyranny and legislation by judicial fiat is not now unwarranted. However, it may in the future be necessary. In the context of innevitable future civil rebellion against judicial tyranny and legislation by judicial fiat it is very likely that certain individuals might engage in vigilantism and ex-post-facto justice. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

4)In the current situation of pathological legalized violence in the form of "legal" baby murdering, everyone must understand that violence will always beget more violence, outside of the abortion clinics. Expect more cases like Hill. It is axiomatic that the violence of "legal" abortion will beget further violence, usually among the intellectually/emotionally/psychologically unstable.

5) Because it is axiomatic that violence, even the violence of "legal" abortion, will always beget further violence, it is evidence of gross ignorance of human nature and Natural Law that certain folks express surprise and dismay at the actions of someone like Hill.

6) Furthermore, to express more outrage at Hill's crime than the pathological violence ("legal" abortion) that precipitated Hill's crime is a symptom of a culture that has completely lost its moral compass and is on the straight and narrow path to self destruction.

[Catspaw]

You asked me a pointed question designed to paint me as one who condones cold-blooded murder.

You do.

[Diamond]

Has anyone asked

I sort of did.

To: sitetest

On their own initiative, individuals may only use lethal violence in immediate defense of innocent human life.

First, let me thank you for your very thoughtful post. But as to the above, my question is, and this is a very hard question for me; isn't that what Paul Hill literally did? He wasn't intending to punish the abortionist and his accomplices, he was intending to use lethal violence in immediate defence of innocent human life. That end he probably accomplished, at least with reference to those slated to be executed that day by the abortionist. Whomever survived the abortionist's knife that day and who may still be alive owes his or her very life in part to Paul Hill, no? Please understand that my question is in no way meant to endorse Paul Hill's violence as the only or even the best way (and therefore justified) to prevent the taking of innocent human life. I personally think he used excessive force, but it might be difficult to convince someone who was saved that day of that view.

To even have to ask the question as I have demonstrates the wicked depravity of our situation and of unregenerate human nature, where anarchy parades itself as the rule of law, where the wicked go free and the innocent are condemned. God have mercy on us.

Cordially,

195 posted on 09/04/2003 2:10 PM CDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Conspiracy Guy]

I wouldn't waste anymore breath on the save our sperm crowd. Since we don't fully agree with them we are the problem.

[January24th]

Yes, your reply is similar. But I'm wanting someone, be they media types, investigative reporters, book writers, pundits, or whatever...to actually ASK. Make inquiry, do research, get to the bottom of it. I'm sure the late Mr. Hill has been thoroughly scrutinzed, but he's only one character in this morality play.

The fact is, (to my limited knowledge) not one single mainstream source, internet source, or blogger has initiated an inquiry into such a fascinating and obvious element of this drama.

It's a story that needs to be told, whatever everyone "feels" about what happened. Intellectual honesty has to look at uncomfortable facts. Ask anyone who's ever been on a jury.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Since we don't fully agree with them we are the problem"

And next some of these nuts will want to liquidate that problem.

[Diamond]

"Legal abortion" is a contradiction in terms, that is, if there really are such things as inalienable rights, one of which is the right to life.

Cordially,

[A Broken Glass Republican]

You're welcome to your opinion.

[Conspiracy Guy]

By your baby saved by doctor killed logic, if Saddam's mom had had the abortion she wanted, thousands of Iraqis and others would be alive. I am pro-life and killing doctors is pro-death. Killing doctors nudges the center to the left on the issue. Change will not be swift and we need support not alienation.

[Polycarp]

Blah blah blah.

Here's one of your heros, foul mouth polycarp.

Thank you for fully living up to the rather tame words I have used towards you. I defy you to copy and paste anything I have said that protests Hill's execution, schmuck.

[Diamond]

I know I'm welcome to my opinion, thank you very much. But it seems that you were making a moral judgment about attempting to make a just executed murderer "the moral equilvilent of those who perform legal abortions", saying that "it makes us look like the FREAKS who do the same thing with the terrorist Palestinians and the Israelies". Perhaps it is possible that you were only concerned with what we look like, which in itself would not necessarily be a moral judgment, but an asthetic one, but if it is a moral judgment, on what basis do you make this moral judgment?

Cordially,

[RaginCajunTrad]

I'm with you Polycarp. With the fed judiciary the way it is and has been, the day may come when....well, it won't be nice.

I was talking with my state rep one day and mentioned that the way things are, the only way that it may ever change is by violent revolution. We both agreed we wouldn't want to see it. He made the statement, "but in a revolution, people will be killed."

I didn't think at the time to tell him that the way things are today about 4,000 babies are killed daily in this country. Probably fewer would die in an armed insurrection. I have made a statement that if GWB wanted to save the lives of Americans, rather than send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, he should have the National Guard close every abortion clinic in the country.

Don't take this as advocating revolution. I just happen to think that one day it will come.

[Catspaw]

Poor Polycarp. Your hero, Paul Hill, is dead in his grave and in a few days, no one--save a few nutball extremists like Neal Horsley and you--will remember him because no one, except those, like Hill (who didn't seem to give a rat's patoot about his own children), who murder in cold blood, or, like you, who cheer them on.

[Polycarp]

You need feel no compunction whatsoever to respond to the insults of free republic's token sick pervert, Chancellor Palpitine. To be denigrated by Chancellor Palpitine is to be praised in the eyes of God.

[Conspiracy Guy]

They are keyboard warriors. Probably never served their country or attended the a Pro-Life protest or Rally. They are no threat to anyone. See ya

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Don't take this as advocating revolution. I just happen to think that one day it will come.

Over abortion?? Seriously??

Nah, you can't be serious. At least I hope you are not.

[RaginCajunTrad]

On second thought, I wouldn't have GWB use the National Guard to shut down the abortion clinics. That IMHO would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. But he could offer the use of the Natl Guard to the individual states governors to shut down the murder..abortion clinics.

[Polycarp]

You enjoy lying and misrepresenting the well articulated views of your opponent. So be it.

May God Bless you abundantly, illuminate your darkened intellect, and have Mercy on your saul.

Good day, Catspaw.

[Catspaw]

My analysis is also clear: if it is legally permissible to arbitrarily kill certain people, it is logically inconsistent to forbid the arbitrary killing of others.

So your argument is the "justifiable homicide" argument used by Hill and his supporters in the Army of God.

[Catspaw]

Mercy on your saul.

Now you're incoherent.

[RaginCajunTrad]

Not over abortion. Probably the 10th Amendment. One day enough states will have enough of federal fiat. It will probably then come about over a Nullification Act or secession.

Or with the number of Hispanics, legal & illegal, it could be a Bosnia-Croation type thing.