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.

[wideawake]

So, what's your justification of the murder of the bodyguard?

The use of deadly force against Britton's henchman would be necessary from Hill's viewpoint if he was actively abetting Britton in his slaughter of children.

What's the justification for shooting his wife?

I don't believe Hill even knew she was there until after the fact.

The book says "Thou Shall Not Murder"...take up the argument with your Maker.

You have repeated this thrice now without addressing the core question: does Scripture forbid people from using deadly force to defend innocent third parties from being killed? You have equated the defense of others with murder three times now, but you have never explained why it is possible to classify it as such. Do you also believe that deadly force in self-defense is murder?

That cohesive moral system cannot be legislated

I am not debating the feasibility of legislating a coherent morality. I am asking you to explain why anyone should heed such an (apparently) inconsistent moral system.

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

Criminalizing the murder of innocent children and criminalizing moral offenses of a much less permanent and egregious nature isn't an all or nothing matter.

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

I cannot and would not wish to create any moral system. That system already exists independently of myself and anyone who disobeys it will face consequences in this world and the next.

but of course, it's easier to blame everything and everyone on the government’s interference

Not only is it easy, it is also accurate to point out that various local laws outlawing abortion were struck down by judicial fiat from an interfering federal government.

then look towards bigger, more intrusive government as the answer to it all.

This is completely illogical. Smaller, more local and less intrusive governments already had just laws on the books before they were struck down.

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

I have neither spun, ducked, nor dodged.

I have answered every point you proposed, but no one here has given an answer to my very simple question: how can one say that it was permissible for John Britton to kill defenseless children but impermissible for Paul Hill to defend those children from John Britton? Why does John Britton get to kill with impunity while Paul Hill is denied that same privilege?

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

This is poor analysis. John Britton murdered children for profit and Paul Hill killed Britton in order to defend those children. The two actions are quite radically different.

The morality of actions is not determined by their results. The defenders of the Alamo completely failed in their efforts - but that does not mean that they acted immorally because futilely.

Who the hell elected Paul Hill, Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

Paul Hill's actions were not one of judge or executioner: he believed that he was acting to prevent future crimes, not to punish past ones.

One might ask with more justice: who elected John Britton judge, jury and executioner over hundreds of small children?

[wideawake]

Paul Hill committed murder, the spin stops here.

Again, unless you can come up with an argument that demonstrates that using deadly force to defend someone from being murdered is the same as murder, your statement is facile and inaccurate.

[MHGinTN]

You asked: Do you consider the US to be the Great Satan that the 9/11 terrorist wanted to kill? No, but I do believe our nation is under a very dark cloud of satanic influence when I witness the glorification of pornography and people prostituting themselves for the entertainment industry, people deluded into defending a murderer like Hill just as easily as people defend a murderer like Britton, people embracing and defending a degenerate president such as sinkEmperor clinton, holding him up as some sort of philosopher king even after he is no longer disgracing MY OVAL OFFICE. Where drunkeness and debauchery thrive and murder of the most innocent among us is accepted as 'a woman's right to choose' murder for her unborn child, that nation is deeply deluded by ssatanic power. But the murderous bombers are even more deeply deluded.

Do you think that Paul Hill has helped the Pro-life movement? The very fact that discussion threads such as this one become fields for play that the stealth defenders of abortion exploit in their efforts to paint pro-life as some sort of fringe movement to be scorned is ample proof that Hill hurt the cause of protecting the little ones far more than he helped. If our nation had laws severely restricting abortion and a person shot and killed an abortionist defying those laws, in such a nation that affirms life, the mistake of a Paul Hill would not be such powerful ammo for the abortion defenders, but the act wouls still be wrong since the law would be there to protect the little ones if applied.

Do you think Eric Rudolph helped? I'll let you answer that extra insult based on what is above.

Was Tim McVeigh a hero? You stoop too low with your insulting hyperbole to be worthy of a credible response at this point. Next time you decide to insult someone this way, take a little time to look into their background (at least their FR page), so you won't make such an donkey of yourself in your effort to be pro-life.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...using deadly force to defend someone from being murdered is the same as murder..."

You still will not answer the reasons behind murdering the body guard, nor will you provide a shred of evidence that he stopped anyone from being aborted.

And...who elected Paul Hill to do anything?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The very fact that discussion threads such as this one become fields for play that the stealth defenders of abortion"

Engaging on a bit of Clintonspeak here Marv?

Why is it that anyone who refutes Hill's actions a "stealth defender of abortion"?

[MHGinTN]

You wrote (in baiting fashion), ... 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. I can easily infer from your tone and wording that you do not believe abortion doctors are doing something wrong and that you hold pro-lifers in derision. Is that the nuance you wish to convey with your mockery?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Paul Hill's actions were not one of judge or executioner"

BS!

You may not like it, but the abortioniust was acting within the law, and Paul Hill outside of it.

Other people were murdered by Hill, what's your spin for that?

[MHGinTN]

Incidentally, I asked more than do you think they are living ... do you consider the prenatal to be a fellow human being worthy of protection for its inalienable right to LIFE?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The use of deadly force against Britton's henchman would be necessary from Hill's viewpoint if he was actively abetting Britton in his slaughter of children."

So then, he should have continued into the building and killed his receptionist, and his accountant, and maybe his janitor.

Then, he should have found the abortionist's medical supplies salesman and killed them, as well as his attorney, and even the people who sold him his Yellow Pages ad.

Hill could have kept going until he actually killed the members of SCOTUS.

Just doing God's work Paul Hill.

I bet you that's not whose eyes he's looking into right now.

[MHGinTN]

Nice try, Luis, but I didn't say what you attribute to me ... and what irks me is, you know that because you are a very smart man and can follow a syllogism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Direct quote from #443 Marv.

[wideawake]

You still will not answer the reasons behind murdering the body guard

I did answer. Hill's reasoning was that the bodyguard was there to guarantee Britton's ability to murder that day. Britton could not be stopped unless his accomplice was as well.

nor will you provide a shred of evidence that he stopped anyone from being aborted

As I stated, providing such evidence is unnecessary to my argument. I will stipulate for argument's sake that he saved no lives that day (although I believe that if this were true, it would have become a commonplace statement in media accounts). This is not material: the morality of an action is neither proven nor disproven by its results.

And...who elected Paul Hill to do anything?

Already asked, already answered.

It's interesting that you accuse me of not answering questions when you have consistently ignored mine:

How can you rationally equate the use of deadly force to defend a child about to be murdered with murder itself?

and

Why is it permissible for Britton to kill people for cash while it is impermissible for Hill to kill to defend the lives of others?

[MHGinTN]

Here's the exact sentence: "The very fact that discussion threads such as this one become fields for play that the stealth defenders of abortion exploit in their efforts to paint pro-life as some sort of fringe movement to be scorned is ample proof that Hill hurt the cause of protecting the little ones far more than he helped." Care to prove the syllogism you attribute to me using the exact quote? You're not so naive as to miss the few posters who jump onto these threads and play at debate while all the while exploiting controversy in order to paint pro-life people as 'fringe'. Pallpatine, Hank, Xbob, to name but three easily identified ones, enjoy the exercise. We have a couple on this current thread that fit the profile also.

[wideawake]

You may not like it, but the abortioniust was acting within the law, and Paul Hill outside of it.

In other words: the law determines what is right and what is wrong. Consequently there are no moral absolutes.

Other people were murdered by Hill, what's your spin for that?

One other person was killed by Hill and we've discussed that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because Hill did not stop any children from being aborted, and there's no proof whatsoever that he did.

You are simply trying to spin some sort of moral relativity crap that holds one man responsible for murder, and the other not.

[MHGinTN]

In #445, you are the one who mischaracterized what I actually said, making an inference that was not there: Why is it that anyone who refutes Hill's actions a "stealth defender of abortion"? I did not say or even imply that 'anyone who refutes Hill's actions' ... and you can be assured of this because I too have refuted his murderous acts and you know I'm not a stealth defender of abortion.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Yes I do, but I abide by the law of man also. Until it can be changed. If I can not abide by the laws of this land and it becomes unbearable, I will leave this country. I will not contend that Paul Hill was saving lives, since anyone who was scheduled probably went somewhere else. When I was taking a smoke break waiting for the nurse to let me back into the labor room for my first born Dec 1979, I spoke with a young man in the waiting room. He looked nervous and scared and was much younger than me. I asked, "first child?" He said with tears in his eyes, "No she doesn't want it we're here for an abortion". I cried with him and we prayed. If that young man had gone into the lab and stopped his pagan girlfriend from killing their child and somebody got hurt. I would helped him and would have testified on his behalf. But a cold calculated murder is another thing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In a civilized society, you can change the law in an organized manner, but you cannot act outside of it as you see fit...your model is called anarchy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

But people in here who call Hill a murderer are being painted as supporters of abortion because we will not condone Hill's actions.

I have yet to see one person defending abortion on this thread, openly or overtly...maybe you can point out these "stealth defenders" to me.

[wideawake]

So then, he should have continued into the building and killed his receptionist, and his accountant, and maybe his janitor.

Then, he should have found the abortionist's medical supplies salesman and killed them, as well as his attorney, and even the people who sold him his Yellow Pages ad.

Hill could have kept going until he actually killed the members of SCOTUS.

This does not follow logically from what I said.

Using deadly force against someone who is about to murder someone is one thing, using deadly force against people who are not directly committing the act or physically preventing others from stopping the act is completely different.

Once again, you are confusing punitive action with preventive action.

Just doing God's work Paul Hill.

That's debatable. But unlike some, he was probably trying to.

I bet you that's not whose eyes he's looking into right now.

I'm not in the habit of wagering on the eternal damnation of others. It's an unChristian undertaking.