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.
You do?
Funny...I don't have a clue what you meant by that.
This thread is about the execution of a murderer...Paul Hill.
There can be no theorethicals when it comes to law...and I think you have the Constitution mixed up with the Declaration of Independence.
Quit it with the "victim" crap.
The moment you stop excusing off the true perps...the ones who careslessly created the unwanted pregnancy to begin with, you will see that abortion is a symptom, and moral degeneracy is the disease.
Yes, it is. And a few people seem to want to make abortion in general the issue. It's not. Hill is.
When a person is murdered, even if the perp isn't convicted, the family may file a civil lawsuit agaisnt the perp. I didn't say 'turn her in', though that would be a more convenient phrase to deride, eh?
Thanks for the ping. But it IS the SB and such cowardly behavior will sometimes happen here. C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.
As opposed to being a vapid, petulant liar?
I'll take that one with glee!
It's real clear the only difference between your thought processes and that of a liberal is taste.
Admirable sentiments. I wish you well with the endevour. Nevertheless, forts don't take, or take back, ground.
No, but I would eschew any contact with them. The question then becomes which one gives up their principles for the sake of family. Do I have to remind you of who put that dichotomy forward?
No, not really. There's no really objective criteria for what constitutes an outrage against morality to the point where one is willing to disobey the law and die rather than play along. It's not an easy concept to understand, I'm sure. There is no "right" to commit civil disobedience; by it's very nature it's an act that goes well outside the bounds of legality. Its practicality, too, may be called into question, as well as the nobility of the cause.
I suppose it would be nice if we could simply work up a list of all the illegal actions that are just and proper grounds for civil disobedience. But to do such a thing would be to suggest that any actions on the list are worthy of achieving legality, and that would nullify their status as crimes and excuse their perpetrators from liability.
On the contrary, they were students of the impact of the press on freedom, and believed it was actually a fourth estate of government in that it would balance the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches' power.
John Milton's 1644 Areopagitica made an impassioned plea for press freedoms, and was cited by our founding fathers in their advocacy for freedom of expression.
I doubt they would be surprised at all by the explosion of information technologies today. They knew that people would disagree. They knew that the government and even our way of life would be attacked in the press. But that was part of the market place of ideas, a sort of means for exposing corruption, fomentation for political change, and comparing philosophies. Free Republic itself is an excellent example of what can happen when these freedoms are allowed to flourish.
Well said, and I only wish that more Americans had this same commitment.
I thought it was a good question, for those who think Paul Hill did the right thing - if what he was doing was right, why are not more "principled" pro-lifers doing the same?
The two possible answers I can see are that (1)what he did WAS NOT right, and (2) they are keyboard warriors without the courage of their convictions.
We can also argue that Paul Hill's actions, while morally right, did not have the desired results (in fact, perhaps the opposite) and therefore were poor strategy.
Please note that I am NOT trying to encourage anyone to go out and commit murder, just trying to understand the thinking here.
Are you suggesting that it is possible that legality is synonymous with morality?
I'm wondering why, if killing abortionists to protect the unborn is the moral thing to do, those of you arguing in defence of Paul Hill aren't also doing as he did.
There must be a reason. The best one I've gotten from you so far is [to paraphrase] that it's not politically expedient.
I'm just wondering if there are other reasons, based in either law or morality.
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.