Posted on 09/04/2003 8:51:55 AM PDT by 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.
Are these "moral and mental midgets" the subjects to be discussed on your "conservative Catholics" threads?
I see very little that's "conservative" and even less "Catholic" in your use of the quoted terminology.
I see you carrying on about the "Judicial tyranny" that's to blame for all the abortions being performed in the U.S. today, what I've never seen is a Judge forcing a pregnant woman at gunpoint to have an abortion.
Maybe, if the moral fiber of the people in this nation were stronger, we wouldn't have an argument about whether abortion should be legal or not...because people would not be creating the unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
As far as Paul Hill..."Thou Shall Not Murder"...I don't see any qualifiers, or disclaimers attached to that...do you?
If it's wrong for the abortionists to kill the babies, it's equally as wrong for the mothers to walk into that office and request the procedure, as it was equally as wrong for Paul Hill to kill two people.
Paul Hill kept repeating that he had done God's work, he did nothing of the sort, he borke God's Commandment...just like that abortionist.
One last thing...I read that in his statement he admitted to putting the gun down after the killings because he did not wish to be killed by the police. Perhaps Paul Hill wanted what he never gave the people he killed, a chance to ask God for forgiveness for their sins.
The only person I've seen quoted in the press is a stepdaughter. I don't know her. If Dr. Britton remarried, it was after all his children were grown.
Sure, but none of them are abortionists.
Do you think God assigns categories to sins, or do you just do it yourself?
I'd agree with you if not for the fact that the 'moral fiber' is being systematicly degraded at taxpayer expense. The founders may never have conceived of assault weapons, but they never conceived of the technologies of propaganda, advertising, and mass communication either.
Yup.
Catspaw
Since Oct 11, 2000
view home page, enter name:
~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~ Return
"PUBLIC NOTICE My posts on Free Republic are Copyright 2003 catspaw. I grant my consent to Free Republic website to host my postings. My posts are not to be reproduced in whole or in part on another forum (ie Free Republic Sucks, Liberty Post, et al.). Reproducing of any posts by me without my prior consent may result in civil action without further warning. Reproduction of posts by me will also be viewed as a binding agreement by the party responsible for reproduction to pay me $5000.00 (US dollars) for each occurrence. The forum hosting my words without my consent will also agree to pay me $5000.00 (US dollars) for each occurrence. I grant users of the Free Republic permission to quote from my posts so long as the quotation is used solely on Free Republic and not on any other forum." Catspaw
The Spanish built the Forts' walls out of coquina, not the strongest rock around, yet, they did it anyway. As best as I can remember, the Old Castillo was never conquered.
You can still see the places in its walls where the cannon from pirate frigattes and British men-o-wars attempted to bring those walls down, the stone simply absorbed the shock, and the cannonball became part of the Castle.
I am raising my kids to survive all the propaganda, and all the outside media influences, I am teaching them that what does not kill you, can make you stronger. I will (when they are older) use the media to illustrate what is wrong in this world.
I am building kids with strong walls that can take the impact of this world, and remain solidly grounded on a firm base, with strong walls to repel the attacks on their morals.
Is it worse to kill an innocent baby or to kill someone about to murder an innocent baby?
Please explain for me:
On what moral grounds can one argue that John Britton is allowed to kill others for profit, but that Paul Hill is not allowed to use deadly force to defend those that John Britton is killing for profit?
I see two possible answers: (1) Killing children for profit is moral and using deadly force to defend those children is immoral according to some as yet unexplained system of moral reasoning or (2) Whatever the legal system countenances at any given moment is right and whatever the legal system does not countenance at any given moment is wrong.
If the right answer is (1) please explain the reasoning in greater detail. If the answer is (2), then just say so.
If someone uses deadly force to prevent one person from killing an innocent third party, does that qualify as murder? Or is it something different?
Was Paul Hill executed for murder yesterday?
I don't think our legal system recognizes anyone as a person or a child until after birth. Legally, then, John Britton was not killing children, and what he was doing was legal (and, as someone noted above, he had the permission of the parents to do what he did).
Paul Hill, on the other hand, killed someone who was legally recognized as a person.
You can argue that our legal system is contradictory, and obviously in some cases it is - in some states you can be prosecuted for the death of an unborn child if, for example, you are intoxicated and at fault in a car wreck which causes a pregnant woman and her baby (or just the baby) to die - but if the woman were to have the same baby aborted, it would be perfectly legal. Go figure.
The part I really don't understand is the idea of the "partial birth" abortions being necessary for the health of the mother. It appears to me that if the woman could survive that procedure, she could survive childbirth, and as the "Baby Logan" and "Baby Sara Grace" threads show, even tiny babies are increasingly able to survive and thrive now.
It is demonstrably self-contradictory. But let's move outside the legal sphere: is the legal moral, and vice versa? Or does morality have a foundation that transcends legal procedure?
The part I really don't understand is the idea of the "partial birth" abortions being necessary for the health of the mother.
You're not alone. Partial birth abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health.
They are an attempt to get around the common prohibition on third trimester abortions. PBA is a legal tactic without any medical significance.
I don't know. Do we take things into our own hands, or do we believe God when he says vengeance is His?
Have you killed any abortion doctors to prevent abortions? If not, why not?
I will exercise my 5th Amendment right to not answer that question your Honor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.