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.
I thought it was applicable to the thread. There are those on this thread who seem to see abortionists as the devil incarnate.
I think what they are doing is evil; my question is, is it so evil God will never forgive them, even if they see the error of their ways and repent?
Um, my comment was to a poster who said he does not care about the abortion issue - if one has no opinion on the killing of babies, they are NOT pro-lfe, and if you are not pro-life you are pro-abortion. Period, no grey area there.
And although there are posters who split hairs and divine intent or look for some type of rational middle-ground, I have not heard ONE poster who outright advocates the killing of Doctors.
I haven't argued in defense of Paul Hill. I believe his actions, though well-meaning, were ill advised.
I am not doing what Paul Hill did because I believe that Paul Hill chose the wrong means for the end he had in view.
The best one I've gotten from you so far is [to paraphrase] that it's not politically expedient.
It has literally nothing to do with political expediency. This isn't about law or politics, but about morality. You completely misrepresent me.
I'm just wondering if there are other reasons, based in either law or morality.
I have outlined this on this thread.
(1) There is too high a risk of accidentally killing an innocent bystander - there are moral implications to the method as well as to result.
(2) I do not believe that an articulate and charismatic foe of abortion like Paul Hill saved as many lives as he could have had he opted to spend the rest of his natural life from 1991 on as an advocate for the unborn. He traded forty years of working to save lives for one day of working to save lives. This is not an appropriate use of God's gifts.
Law consists entirely of theory, theory which is sometimes applied, and sometimes not.
I think you have the Constitution mixed up with the Declaration of Independence
Securing the blessings of liberty for posterity is hard to do when you're murdering that posterity.
The first liberty is the right to life and the first blessing of liberty is life itself.
Ultimately, yes.
What do you do to a woman who leaves the country to have an abortion when she returns?
What would I do? I would have absolutely nothing to do with such an individual.
You're the one who has introduced the "victim" concept into the discussion. I haven't.
The moment you stop excusing off the true perps
No one is excusing them.
I am pointing out the various levels of culpability.
the ones who careslessly created the unwanted pregnancy to begin with
Any pregnancy can become a wanted pregnancy - the child's existence, whatever the circumstances of his conception, isn't the problem.
you will see that abortion is a symptom, and moral degeneracy is the disease
This is an accurate analysis.
Regardless of the process of selection, we have an unelected official handing down arbitrary decisions concerning who gets to be recognized as a human being and who doesn't.
I am absolutely not, you can't erase something that was never there
A fascinating point: unborn children exist, yet the law of the US says they don't. Nonpersons actually were, from a moral point of view, persons - yet the law of the USSR said they weren't.
The analogy still holds.
You are arguing in favor of the illegal act of murder
I am in fact arguing a case for the act of using deadly force to avert murder.
you can't justify murder in the name of stopping murder
Every month or so in the US someone kills someone who is threatening their life or the life of someone else. It is eminently justified. The only difference in Paul Hill's case is that he killed someone who was threatening the life of someone who was not legally designated as a person.
If John Britton had been about to tear a five months born child limb from limb rather than a a five months gestated child, Paul Hill would be alive, free and honored today.
and continue to claim a moral high ground
I'm not claiming high ground. I'm claiming moral and logical consistency.
It's wrong...period.
If it were wrong, "period", then you could offer us a coherent moral system that describes why it is morally permissible to murder an innocent child but morally impermissible to use deadly force to defend that innocent child.
If you can't offer a logically consistent explanation of these two moral judgments, then you are defaulting to the view that legality and morality are contiguous.
If that is the case, then nothing is wrong, "period" - things are only wrong provisionally, because at any moment a judge could rule that they are right.
Nor had she those rights legally after she was born either...until reaching legal age.
Really? So I cannot claim a tax exemption on her behalf? My daughter is not legally allowed to own the college savings account that is open in her name and registered to her Social Security number? If someone injures my daughter she cannot appear in a court of law as a plaintiff?
Respectfully, I doubt that the laws of your state are that radically different from those of mine.
Until the legal point is settled, the moral point is moot.
So then you are arguing that legality trumps morality. That reasoning has implications far more sinister than a random Presbyterian minister shooting a hitman who specializes in babies.
Applied to him as well.
Only if one expands the definition of murder to include the use of deadly force to defend the life of another person.
Your reply here is mere insult, and at that, not even connected to reality. You may recall that in my #165 (which you must have read, because you responded to it) I stated explicitly that my question was 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 also stated that I personally think he used excessive force, but at the same time it might be difficult to convince someone who was saved that day of that view.
Cordially,
Cordially,
So, what's your justification of the murder of the bodyguard?
What's the justification for shooting his wife?
The book says "Thou Shall Not Murder"...take up the argument with your Maker.
"...then you could offer us a coherent moral system..."
That cohesive moral system cannot be legislated, the only thing you can do is criminalize the act of abortion and any other activities that are deemed "immoral" by whoever you chose to make those decisions. If you could truly create the "cohesive moral system" you long for, it would start with no sexual intercourse that would lead to unwanted pregnancies, but of course, it's easier to blame everything and everyone on the government’s interference, then look towards bigger, more intrusive government as the answer to it all.
You can spin, duck, and dodge all you wish to in your attempt at establishing some sort of deluded morality in Paul Hill’s actions…there isn’t one, he murdered just like the abortionist murdered, and there’s absolutely no substantiating evidence that he saved the life of even one child.
”Regardless of the process of selection, we have an unelected official handing down arbitrary decisions
Who the hell elected Paul Hill, Judge, Jury, and Executioner?
Paul Hill committed murder, the spin stops here.
BINGO!
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.