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.
Again, the results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality.
You are simply trying to spin some sort of moral relativity crap that holds one man responsible for murder, and the other not.
You have used the words "spin" and "murder" several times now without answering the basic question: is using deadly force with the intent to save someone else's life murder? If so, why?
So, you are claiming that the body guard assisted in the performance of abortions?
Or are you saying that the body guard had more complicity than the receptionist who scheduled the procedure, the salesman who sold the tools of the trade, or the bookkeeper who helped the business stay open?
All you are trying to do is to condone the act of murder while simultaneously condemning the act of murder.
A society in which it is legal to murder defenseless children is, by definition, not a civilized society.
My model is hardly anarchic - rather the current system exhibits moral anarchy.
My model is simple and ordered: it should be illegal to take human life unless one is acting to defend another human life which is being unjustly threatened.
This model is logically consistent and it is morally consistent.
The results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality.
"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?"
The results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality.
The results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality.
"It should be illegal to take human life unless one is acting to defend another human life which is being unjustly threatened."
The results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality.
His job was to make sure that abortions were performed, even to the extent of using physical force to ensure that they would be performed.
Or are you saying that the body guard had more complicity than the receptionist who scheduled the procedure, the salesman who sold the tools of the trade, or the bookkeeper who helped the business stay open?
It is not an issue of complicity. It is an issue of immediacy.
All you are trying to do is to condone the act of murder while simultaneously condemning the act of murder.
Again you describe the act of using deadly force to prevent a murder with murder itself. You have not yet offered any explanation why using deadly force with the intent of saving another person's life is murder.
Instead you engage in an endless, psittacistic begging of the question which is under debate.
I've just read a couple of the responses so far, but you are already being criticized for posting it.
Of course.
And since these moral cowards cannot refute the substance of my position, they lie and try to misrepresent my position so they have a straw man that their meager intellects can more easily disregard. They are indeed moral and mental midgets.
No, his job was to make sure that the doctor was not hurt.
The receptionist's job was to make sure that abortions were performed, as is the medical supplies sales people, as is the attorneys and accountants who helped keep the business going.
You simply need to justify a murderer's actions to your own satisfaction.
I will have to take this as a concession from you that you are unable to discuss the matter coherently.
Which, if you are truly unable to grasp the distinction between the motive of an action and its result, is probably not your fault.
Incorrect. His job was more than just protecting the abortionist from injury: his job was to ensure that the abortionist would not be hindered by others in his movements as he went about his work.
The receptionist's job was to make sure that abortions were performed, as is the medical supplies sales people, as is the attorneys and accountants who helped keep the business going.
While this is not necessarily true, I will stipulate it again for argument's sake. The receptionist, salesman and bookkeepers did not physically interpose themselves between the victims and their rescuer in order to physically prevent their rescuer in his efforts.
You simply need to justify a murderer's actions to your own satisfaction.
Again, you use a word - "murder" - to describe an action that is not murder.
You need to explain why using deadly force to prevent someone else from being murdered is itself murder. You haven't done that, nor have you even tried.
If this where a true statement you would be able to demonstrate it logically, rather than simply cutting and pasting a single statement devoid of context.
Your intention was to mock, not to demonstrate.
My argument is not circular: it is indubitably true that a morally correct action can result in an undesirable outcome. It is equally correct that an immoral action can result in a desirable outcome.
Let's take a hypothetical: a hitman is sent to assassinate his boss' business partner. He shoots but misses. The resulting commotion ends in his being taken into custody and his boss' criminal empire being dismantled due to evidence collected through his plea bargain. A thoroughly evil action results in an unintended but very beneficial state of affairs.
One last Word on Hill: Matthew 26:52: "...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"
The truth of this statement is undeniable. I will comment that the drawer of the sword in the Gospel passage was St. Peter. St. Peter himself later died by the sword just as the Lord said, in a glorious martyrdom.
Simon bar Jona made his choice in life, as did Paul Hill.
I strenuously disagree.
Absolutely none of the statements of mine he quoted dealt with the results of actions, but with either the motives of actions or the first principles upon which those motives were based.
I assure you, Luis is quite capable of discerning motive and action. And years of reading his posts prove beyond any doubt that he is quite capable of discussing an issue coherently ... in fact, his surgical precision often leaves a field of comments chopped into the incoherencies rife in the bunch.
I'm sure that Luis is capable of discussing issues coherently, discerning motive from action, etc.
But for some reason he has chosen not to exercise those abilities with respect to my last few posts.
All he has to do in order to demonstrate an incoherence in my argument is to logically show how defending oneself or others is morally equivalent to attacking others.
With everyone except yourself...or so it seems.
Now you're entering the Bill Clinton universe in parsing to meet your needs.
Hill committed murder, he's dead because of it. Condemned by both man's law and God's Word...that you would draw a comparision between Hill and St. Peter is absurd.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that he saved anyone's life.
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.