Posted on 09/04/2003 8:51:55 AM PDT by Polycarp
That's a lot of ifs, with no certainty.
I take it, then, that you feel that the ROTC bombers' circumstances would be more analogous to Mr. Hill's circumstances if the ROTC bombers had blown up the White House or the Pentagon? Would you be even more forgiving of their acts if they had only killed American bomber pilots?
Add to that the fact that no ROTC member had any personal intention of killing children if they went into combat - they signed up to fight armed enemy combatants and desparately wanted to avoid killing children.
Everyone knew that our participation in the Vietnam War would necessarily and certainly result in the deaths of innocent Vietnamese children. Some of the folks who opposed the war thought it necessary to do whatever they had to do to stop it - the lives of innocent babies were at stake. Should anything else have mattered to them under those circumstances?
Is your only objection to the ROTC bombers their failure to be more discriminating in the selection of their targets? How discriminating was Mr. Hill? Was Britton his only victim?
The funniest thing I've seen posted in here so far. You're an artist.
You'll get no argument from me on the founder's esteem for the press...but that isn't what I was talking about.
I'd be most interested in any pre-Constitution references to the scientific application of propaganda and advertising, even conceptually, in crafting the public's world-view that you could provide.
I believe that what Paul Hill did was wrong.
But I do not believe that he committed murder.
Nor do I believe that Paul Hill had any reason to expect that he would not be sentenced and executed.
Paul Hill, in contrast, will be severely criticised by the other inhabitants of Hell for shooting the abortionist.
To a degree, Paul Hill will suffer more in Hell than will the abortionist.
Is this fair? Are the people in Hell all Senate Democrats? Now I ask you, is there some sort of equivalence in all of this?
Obviously not, since the people there were even one further move away than ROTC members from the killing fields.
Would you be even more forgiving of their acts if they had only killed American bomber pilots?
American bomber pilots do not do their jobs with the intention of killing children. In fact, they do everything feasible to avoid such an eventuality.
I don't understand why you're comparing our armed forces to contract killers who do everything in their power to kill as many children as possible.
It's rather insulting.
Everyone knew that our participation in the Vietnam War would necessarily and certainly result in the deaths of innocent Vietnamese children.
Even if this is true, no one desired that outcome, no one sought it and everyone tried to minimize the chance of such an occurrence.
Some of the folks who opposed the war thought it necessary to do whatever they had to do to stop it - the lives of innocent babies were at stake.
For the violent protestors children were not a concern: they opposed the war because they thought the successful spread of Communism was at stake.
But for argument's sake let's say their motivation was purely humanitarian.
In that case they still had no right to kill someone because they thought there was a chance that that person might at some point in the future endanger a child. The time to act in defense of another is when that other person is in clear and present danger, not theoretical future danger. One might as well randomly kill some inner city teenagers because statistically speaking one in 400 or so of them will commit first degree murder at some point in the future.
Should anything else have mattered to them under those circumstances?
Yes: the fact that they (a) had no evidence that their victims were in the habit of killing children, (b) had no evidence that their victims intended to kill any children, (c) had no way of knowing if any of their victims would ever kill any children in the future.
Is your only objection to the ROTC bombers their failure to be more discriminating in the selection of their targets?
Hardly.
How discriminating was Mr. Hill?
The only people he killed had either committed or guaranteed the commission of many murders and were in the process of setting about another day of murders.
Was Britton his only victim?
I'm pretty sure that you are aware of Barrett's killing.
You appear to prefer baiting inference and innuendo over direct dialog, so this 'Christian' will eschew further exchanges with you.
Lots of sense my friend.
Who appointed Hill to be the executioner?
Actually, are YOU saying that we can't expect the people in this society to act in a responsible manner when it comes to having sex?
Do you believe that people are little better than animals?
Paul Hill was a coward, and demented. A man condemned by his own children.
You keep repeating that like a mantra, while simultaneously making the argument that since what Paul Hill did may have (unproven) saved some babies lives, his was not an act of murder, but an act of moral outrage.
"The results of an action have nothing to do with its morality or immorality."
Quit talking in circles.
I wonder if Mr. Hill ever had an opportunity to find out if his act actually prevented any abortions. Did any of the women this doctor was scheduled to abort not just make alternative arrangements for the same procedure?
Can you imagine how devestating it would have been for Mr. Hill to have learned that he didn't prevent any abortions?
If you'll take the time to read back on the thread, woahhs and I were having a 'discussion' in which he seemed to be asserting that the family members of abortionists were either evil as well, or shouldn't have been worried about their evil family member being killed.
My first contact with you on this thread, IIRC, occured when you jumped in with the statement "If a family member of mine performed abortions and I found out, I would disown that individual and never lay eyes on them again in my lifetime so long as it were possible ..." - you seemed to be agreeing with woahhs' opinion of the family members.
I then asked you if you thought abortionists were beyond redemption, which you declined to answer, saying it was off-topic.
Incidentally, Paul was a Pharisee,
Paul was a Pharisee, when he called himself Saul and before he met Jesus on the road to Damascus.
You appear to prefer baiting inference and innuendo over direct dialog, so this 'Christian' will eschew further exchanges with you.
Perhaps just as well.
Like Paul Hill, St. Peter murdered no one.
But did St. Peter kill two unsuspecting criminals like Paul Hill?
Why, yes he did.
Their names were Ananias and Sapphira, their crime was fraud, and you can read about them in Acts 5:1-11.
If I have repeated myself, it is because others have endlessly repeated the idea that Paul Hill's alleged (but as yet unsubstantiated) failure to save children means that it was immoral for him to try to save children in the first place.
That's erroneous.
while simultaneously making the argument that since what Paul Hill did may have (unproven) saved some babies lives, his was not an act of murder, but an act of moral outrage.
If Paul Hill did not have an immoral intent, his act was no more a moral outrage than it was a murder.
Ungermanely, it is my opinion that given how thoroughly Paul Hill's crime and Paul Hill himself were investigated by journalists who are sympathetic to the slaughter of the unborn, if he had truly not averted any murders that day, the pro-abortion press would have trumpeted that fact from the rooftops.
So I conclude provisionally that it is quite likely that he did save some children's lives.
Quit talking in circles.
You and not I are talking in circles. You insist again and again that Paul Hill committed murder.
Yet you have no coherent definition for the term "murder" at all - as far as I can see, your working definition of murder is: "Murder is whatever Luis Gonzalez feels like calling murder."
I find that to be a logically insufficient and morally incoherent definition.
My definition of murder is this: the intentional killing of a human being who is not an immediate threat to the life of another human being.
Unlike yours, my definition is neither circular nor arbitrary.
Whoever you are, you are a deluded individual. Paul Hill committed the act of murder, a deranged coward, he wasn't even man enough to face the authorities, putting his weapon down after murdering unaremed individuals so that the police would not kill him.
By your insane view of the world, self-indiced "moral outrage" is justification for breaking the laws of both God and man, God says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and you play word games to justify murder.
If your absurd logic is examined, Usama bin Laden is a martyr and not a murderer, as he acted in a manner that he believed was just in God's eyes. You will raise the argument that Usama is not following the true God, exposing the fatal flaw in the argument of insane zealots such as you, Paul Hill, and Usama bin Laden, who believe in a God that justifies murder, and believe yourselves to be the only ones who truly understand Him.
Two wrongs never make a right, and that's been your argument all along...that in this case they do. You are wrong, and Paul Hill was wrong in committing murder, adding those two facts up still nets a wrong. Abortion is wrong as murder is wrong, so Paul Hill was as wrong as the doctor, and adding THOSE two facts up STILL nets a wrong...Paul Hill was a murderer. Now he is a dead murderer...good riddance.
In your arguments about why it was OK to murder the bodyguards, hides the logic that killing Law Enforcement Officers guarding an abortion clinic is a permissible and moral action.
Go do it, and tell the world you're doing God's work...you can shout that all the way to Hell.
Your argument is the same argument used by homicide bombers and terrorists the world over...it's moral to murder in the name of God.
It is not.
The world is better off without Paul Hill, and once you are gone, I'll say the same about you.
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.