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.
It's really not very complicated.
The only time it is permissible to use deadly force to defend someone else's life is if that someone is in clear and present danger.
I wonder if Mr. Hill ever had an opportunity to find out if his act actually prevented any abortions.
I doubt it, since such information is "confidential between a woman and her doctor."
Did any of the women this doctor was scheduled to abort not just make alternative arrangements for the same procedure?
By the same "procedure" I presume you mean the same tearing of a small infant limb from limb.
As I've said elsewhere, there is obviously a possibility that the children who did not die that day may have been murdered later. It is also possible that by the time a rescheduling was possible, one or more of the children in question passed the magical, arbitrary line known as the third trimester and became safe according to the rules of the game.
I honestly have no idea.
Can you imagine how devestating it would have been for Mr. Hill to have learned that he didn't prevent any abortions?
Presumably it would have upset him.
Presumably as well, a pro-abortion journalist would have known this and, in the course of doing research for the many hit pieces on Paul Hill that have been produced over the past decade, would have ascertained this if it were true and made sure to rub Hill's face in it.
To my knowledge that has not happened, so my unsubstantiated assumption is that he did save lives.
It can be very difficult to care passionately about an issue that we feel is being handled unfairly. It's not always easy to just accept the feeling of being powerless under those circumstances.
None of this is easy. I can't celebrate Mr. Hill's death any more than I can celebrate his act of terrorism.
This is argumentum ad hominem number one.
Paul Hill committed the act of murder
Only by a completely arbitrary definition of the word which has no relation to its actual meaning.
a deranged
The same court which found him guilty of legal murder also found him fit to stand trial. Would you care to explain why you believe that the court can arbitrarily define murder to your satisfaction, but that it is simultaneously incapable of defining derangement to your satisfaction? This is another patent inconsistency in your argument.
coward
I presume you have your own idiosyncratic definition of cowardice as well. Sadly, I fear that like your definition of "murder" you'll never actually share it on the thread.
he wasn't even man enough to face the authorities
You are mistaken. He did face the authorities: he waited for them to show up instead of taking the time to flee.
putting his weapon down after murdering unaremed individuals
Again, Paul Hill did not commit murder. You have yet to make an argument that he has by any moral definition. Parenthetically, Barrett was licensed to carry a weapon and had enthusiastically informed Hill of this on prior occasions. Hill probably presumed that Barrett was telling the truth and that he was armed that day.
so that the police would not kill him
This underlines Hill's position. He did not come that day to have a standoff with law enforcement but to rescue children. To attack police officers who were not threatening any children would have been completely inconsistent with his motive for being there and being armed in the first place.
By your insane view of the world
Here is argumentum ad hominem number two.
self-indiced "moral outrage" is justification for breaking the laws of both God and man
Personal feelings have nothing to do with justifying breaking human laws and nothing can justify breaking God's law. Using deadly force to defend innocent children who are objectively being threatened has nothing to do with subjective feelings.
God says "Thou Shalt Not Murder"
Yet God never says "thou shalt not use deadly force to defend another's life" - which is the matter under discussion here. Again, you have failed to prove from Scripture or by logical inference that such a use of deadly force is synonymous with murder.
and you play word games to justify murder
This is untrue, but I understand why you say it. You have no coherent definition for what the word "murder" means. Or, if you do, you have yet to define it.
My definition is clear, clearly stated and has nothing to do with semantics: murder is the intentional killing of a person who is not threatening the life of another person.
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
According to my logic, Usama bin Laden is a murderer because he is in the habit of killing people who cannot even be remotely construed as threatening the lives of others. Whether Usama bin Laden uses demonstrably inauthentic scriptures to bolster his illogical and immoral actions is immaterial.
You will raise the argument that Usama is not following the true God
Again, Usama bin Laden's fundamental mistake is immaterial. His actions directly contravene natural law, regardless of the manner he uses to justify them.
exposing the fatal flaw in the argument of insane zealots such as you
Here is argumentum ad hominem number three.
Paul Hill, and Usama bin Laden, who believe in a God that justifies murder
Here is the second begging of the question. My position all along has been that Paul Hill's actions, by definition, were not murder.
and believe yourselves to be the only ones who truly understand Him
My argument has never been predicated on any special or private revelation, but on the morality of using deadly force to defend the lives of others.
This is an argument by bait and switch. Unfortunately, I am not so easily baited by poorly reasoned assertions.
Two wrongs never make a right, and that's been your argument all along...that in this case they do.
Incorrect. My argument all along has been that it is right in all cases (although not necessarily obligatory), and not wrong to use deadly force to defend another person.
You are wrong
It is entirely possible that my thesis: the use of deadly force to defend others from death is moral, is wrong.
You have had ample opportunity to explain why it is wrong to use deadly force to defend others. For example, you could explain why if someone tried to kill my daughter (God forbid) it would be wrong for me to kill them while they were trying to kill her.
But you have consistently failed to explain why such a use of force is objectively and consistently immoral.
and Paul Hill was wrong in committing murder
For the umpteenth time, you have made the grave error of affirming the consequent. You have yet to prove that Paul Hill is a murderer by any other than an arbitrary legal definition.
adding those two facts up still nets a wrong
I believe you are confusing morality with bookkeeping when you say this.
It is neither a fact that I am wrong nor is it a fact that Hill was wrong. These are bald assertions you have yet to prove.
Abortion is wrong as murder is wrong
This is true, precisely because abortion is one form of murder.
so Paul Hill was as wrong as the doctor
The only way this statement can be true is if you can show that the children the doctor was about to kill were intentionally trying to kill someone else or, conversely, that it is wrong to use deadly force to defend someone else.
and adding THOSE two facts up STILL nets a wrong...Paul Hill was a murderer
Again, morality is not double-entry accounting and you are again affirming the consequent.
Now he is a dead murderer...good riddance.
What a charitable sentiment.
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.
That's an unjustified leap. Such a law enforcement officer can argue that he is there to prevent vandalism or destruction of property. He may not intend the deaths of any children at all, while James Barrett's acknowledged intent was to make sure that babies were successfully killed.
Go do it, and tell the world you're doing God's work...you can shout that all the way to Hell.
This kind of rhetoric makes it difficult for me to believe that you have any interest at all in a rational debate of the issue.
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.
At no point have I used a theological argument at all. I have argued that it is moral to use deadly force to defend the life of another person.
Homicide bombers and terrorists do not kill in order to defend the lives of people who are in imminent danger - such a moral framework is entirely alien to their intent and to their actions.
The world is better off without Paul Hill, and once you are gone, I'll say the same about you.
With this comment, I have to say that you have really gone beyond the bounds of polite conversation. This comment was, quite frankly, ungentlemanly and unChristian.
MHGinTN, I still think, along with you, that Luis is an intelligent man capable of conducting a rational argument.
However, he has continually argued about murder without defining his terms - a really embarrassingly basic mistake - and he has been thoroughgoingly rude and insulting.
I forgive him his discourtesy, of course. But I have to say his conduct has been most disedifying.
We all know the defonition of murder, you will not acknowledge it.
Your problem, not mine.
The definition of murder is: taking the life of a person who is not immediately threatening your own life or the life of another.
Under the definition Paul Hill is only a murderer if you deny the personhood of an unborn child.
If you are working with a different definition of murder than my definition, please spell it out.
Thank you. You are too kind.
Obviously, killing people comes easier for some people than others,
This is especially true of John Britton.
but I think it probably causes nearly everyone to at least pause and think
Hopefully you are right.
It can be very difficult to care passionately about an issue that we feel is being handled unfairly. It's not always easy to just accept the feeling of being powerless under those circumstances.
Well said and very true.
None of this is easy. I can't celebrate Mr. Hill's death any more than I can celebrate his act of terrorism.
While I can't say I share your assessment of Hill's actions as terrorism, I am gratified that you do not find his execution cause for celebration.
There are some on this thread who do, and one who says that he would even celebrate my death.
Thomas Aquinas accurately described anger as the enemy of prudence as well as charity.
Non-Sequitor
You don't seem to be applying your famed Catholic 'right reason'. If your conclusion follows than any man may take on the function of the State in those cases in which he believes the State fails to enforce a moral law. These sorts of actions cannot be randomly applied by individuals but must be through communal action.
Using your definition, Paul Hill would be guilty of the murder of Col. Barrett, who was not immediately threatening the life of anyone.
Yes, Paul Hill knew that Col. Barrett was often armed, but Col. Barrett was not "immediately threatening the life" of anyone, and one would think that Paul Hill could have killed John Britton before Col. Barrett might have shot him back, since Hill had the element of surprise on his side.
However, Hill shot Barrett first (so Barrett wouldn't have a chance of shooting Hill, even after Britton was dead) then shot Britton, then put his gun down so the police wouldn't shoot him.
Hill might have had the courage of his convictions, but he certainly didn't intend to die for them that day. Instead, he murdered Col. Barrett.
I couldn't find the name of the author. Apparently it was written by an alcoholic. ;-)
I certainly won't try to speak for everyone else who condemns the conduct of Mr. Hill. Speaking for myself, though, I hope that Mr. Hill has at last found some serenity.
He's with Richard Nixon now.
Col. Barrett and his wife weren't threatening the lives of anyone, and you can't prove that Dr. Britton wouldn't have been there that day if they had not been. Neither of the Barretts was armed.
Hill laid down his gun because the guilty had been shot-he had no plans for killing cops who were just doing their job.This act proves his intentions were honorable, not that he was a coward.
The news reports I've read have all said that Hill said he put his gun down so the police would not shoot him.
He didn't mind killing for his beliefs, but on that day at least, he didn't intend to die for them.
Hill then laid the shotgun at his feet and awaited his arrest. "I was relieved when they cuffed me," he wrote. "I gave a hopeful and non-resisting look to the policeman who ordered me under arrest with his drawn handgun. I did not want to be shot, and was glad to be safely in police custody."
Barrett was present to make sure that Britton would be able to kill some kids within the next few minutes.
It's like saying that the hitman's associate who is standing at the scene to make sure that no one is able to stop the hitman from killing his victim is not an immediate threat to the victim's life.
That's not really true.
It's like saying that the hitman's associate who is standing at the scene to make sure that no one is able to stop the hitman from killing his victim is not an immediate threat to the victim's life.
The Barretts drove Dr. Britton from the airport to the clinic. They were unarmed and of retirement age - I don't see that they were very much (actually they turned out not to be any) protection for John Britton.
John Britton could have gotten from the airport using a different mode of transportation, but the Barretts were not "immediately threatening" anyone's life - your definition of justifiable homicide, remember?
According to Hill's statements, he chose to shoot Barrett first. He could have shot only Britton and accomplished his stated purpose for the day. Why did he also shoot the Barretts? They were no threat to babies.
Odd how suddenly 90% of FReepers are pro-abortion in your mind.
You notice I was willing to grant that there might be something to the argument that killing Dr. Britton in defense of unborn babies met the definition of justifiable homicide. I still don't think that the Barretts were an immediate threat to anyone's life, however.
I don't care what the news report said! Hill laid down his gun for the sake of the police officer-not himself.
Hill said himself he put his gun down so that maybe they wouldn't shoot him.
I say again: He was willing to kill for his cause, but he wasn't willing to die for it that day.
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.