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

[wideawake]

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.

That conclusion does not follow from my assertion.

The issue here is another person's life being in immediate danger, not the enforcement of legal sanctions.

[wideawake]

Now we have three different versions of Barrett's role.

Originally he was an abortionist's "escort."

Then he was described as a "bodyguard."

Now you're describing him as a chauffeur.

He was more than that: he was a pro-abortion ideologue who was there to make sure that abortions were facilitated in any way he could.

The fact that he was unable to fulfill his function as a murderer's assistant effectively doesn't much matter.

Additionally, much has been made of his status as an Air Force veteran - as if he was deserving of extra respect on that account. He was a trained warrior.

[Amelia]

I've also seen Barrett described as an "escort" or "bodyguard". However, he doesn't seem to fit the description of a bodyguard - an older man, unarmed?

From the articles I've read, he was transporting Britton from the airport to the clinic, and walking into the clinic with him. What would you call that role?

I can see how if Britton were 'taken out', no abortions could be performed, and babies could be saved, but I just can't see how killing Barrett saved any babies.

[fatima]

Why is he still here.Back away from the forum take your hands off the keys-

[F.J. Mitchell]

Agreed then; Hill wasn't ready to die for it that day, for he was not willing to lay the burden of his death upon one lone policeman. His objective instead was to be executed only after the entire justice system had a chance to disprove it's reputation for being pro-abortion,mercilessly pro-death penalty for any who are anti-abortion and rabidly anti-christian always. The Injustice system instead, went out of it's way to prove itself guilty as charged.

Ninty percent of Freepers pro-abortion seems very high. Surely, in my mind, we can reason there must be a few who are merely beguiled.

THere has been a mind bogging amount of killing going on since the SCOTUS made it's immoral and mindless desision called Roe vs Wade. Pampered and government protected baby slaughterers have grown filthy rich, undeservedly powerful and as arrogant as royalty. May God forgive me, but try as I will, I cannot dredge up a single iota of sympathy for dead dying or wounded baby killers and their volunteer perps. I do grieve for sacrifice made by their executioners.

Until someone can explain to me in a way I can understand,just what makes the lives of baby killers worth more than the lives of the innumerable babies they kill and the life of the occasional baby killer, killer, combined, I'll shed my tears for the latter.

[wideawake]

Would you care to explain your cryptic comment?

[Quester]

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2002-1/issue5/fe-abortion.html

5, vol 110 -- February 11, 2002
Anti-Abortion Terror Campaign
Shauna Nest, The Martlet

"I'm from a generation that saw first hand the effects of unsafe abortions performed in back alleys or on the kitchen table," says Conley, who traces her own commitment to abortion rights to seeing her girlfriend receive an abortion on a kitchen table when they were only 13. This type of experience kindled a passion for the pro-choice movement and motivated many doctors to include abortion among the services they offer.

But Conley says that the younger generation of doctors is less acquainted with the reasons why access to safe abortions is important.

Victoria used to be home to about a dozen doctors who perform abortions. That number has since dropped by half, with a similar trend occurring across the country. Chronic underfunding of the health care system is partially responsible. Every week, another GP walks away from their practice because they can't afford to pay the overhead.

What's more, family doctors who have managed to stay afloat lack financial incentive to perform abortions. Abortion is considered a minor surgical procedure, and the fees for first and second trimester abortions have been cut by 17 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. The fee for first trimester abortions currently sits at the 1982 level.

But perhaps the most significant reason for the decline in abortion services is the anti-abortion terror campaign. Every year, Conley trains young physicians who come to her wanting to know how to perform abortions. But when she asks them if they will make abortion part of their practice, they almost invariably say no. And the reason is always the same: it is too dangerous.

Since abortion was made legal and unrestricted in Canada in 1988, anti-abortion violence has skyrocketed. Clinics have been bombed and doctors have been attacked. In 1992, the Toronto Morgentaler clinic was firebombed, and in 1996 the Edmonton Morgentaler clinic suffered a butyric acid attack. In 1995 and 1997, Dr. Hugh Short of Hamilton and Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg were both shot in their homes. In 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver was shot and seriously wounded at his home, and just last year he was stabbed in the back as he was entering his medical office. He survived the attack.

The government has taken steps to ensure the safety of doctors who make abortion part of their medical practice. After the shooting of Dr. Romalis, the government hired private investigators to counsel all physicians who perform abortions on how to avoid a similar attack.

Conley remembers the eerie visit.

"They debriefed me at home for six hours, describing in detail all the possible ways in which I could be attacked and what strategies I could use to stay safe. Take a different route home from work every day, they said. Always have someone else pull the blinds or curtains shut before you enter a room. Get a dog."

In 1995, the B.C. government made it illegal to protest in front of abortion clinics, doctors' offices or doctors' homes. When a court struck down the Access to Abortion Services Act in 1996, the B.C. Court of Appeals restored the Act to full force, stating that in certain circumstances it is legitimate to restrict freedom of speech when individuals' lives are at risk.

A vigorous police effort was initiated in 1997 to find the individual, or individuals, responsible for the attacks on physicians. Given the similarity of the attacks, police suspected that a single individual was responsible. Their prime suspect, notorious anti-abortionist James Kopp, was arrested in France in March 2001. Doctors like Conley hoped for a cessation of violent attacks against abortion providers.

But the intimidation continues. Last year, a man was arrested hiding in the bushes in front of a Victoria medical office with a camera, a dreaded instrument to any physician performing a controversial procedure. These pictures are circulated among anti-abortionists, identifying the doctor as a target. Conley has also had her picture taken at public talks, where she is regularly heckled. And she frequently receives hate mail from anti-abortion groups.

"To this day I can't bring myself to enter a room with an uncovered window," says Conley. She also installed a bullet proof window at her Victoria office.

The fear of attack is enough to frighten most young doctors away from formally associating themselves with the procedure of abortion. In this sense, the terror campaign of certain anti-abortionists is working.

As a result, a crisis of severely restricted access to abortion is looming on the horizon.

Women's groups are complaining that women in rural areas, or even small cities, lack access to abortion. That is both an inconvenience and expense that makes abortion significantly less accessible for many women; especially those most likely to be in need of it.

Conley feels that a small sector of society is using terror to derail the democratic process. Rather than engaging in dialogue, anti-abortionist terrorists are forcing doctors to choose between their security and their ideals. Most physicians choose their security. This bargain effectively places "heroic" on the list of qualifications necessary to becoming a doctor who performs abortions in Canada.

[Quester]

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.

If you take the time to think a bit regarding which side of this issue God likely supports ... you may find that your last statement is not so sure a bet.

[Quester]

All you are trying to do is to condone the act of murder while simultaneously condemning the act of murder.

Do you think that anyone on the thread is not doing this ?

[Quester]

Matthew 26:52: "...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"

Indeed.

I believe that was the argument of the original poster.

[Quester]

Hill committed murder, he's dead because of it.

Britton committed murder, ... he's dead because of it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Britton performed abortions, in the legal sense of the term, he did not commit murder; you and I may not like that, and we can argue successfully that abortion is murder, but it does not change the fact that as revolting as you and I find this notion, he was performing a perfectly legal "medical procedure". But we are a nation of laws, and what holds us together is the ability to act in a lawful manner. We need to go about the two-pronged task of overturning Roe v. Wade, and raising children who understand that abortion is murder, and murder is a sacrilege in the eyes of Our Maker, we cannot accomplish this by engaging in the lawlessness.

The Founders built a secular system of government that relied on the religious morals of the people, they did it because they understood that it would take such individuals to follow the letter of the law, enforce that law, and uphold it, even when faced with a law that is completely against their personal beliefs. It's the only way that the system can survive.

The system cannot survive with rampant vigilantism, and people feeling justified in acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner whenever they do not agree with the current set of laws. What good would a trial by a jury of our peers, one of the cornerstones of our system of government be if actions like Paul Hill’s are elevated to the level of morality?

If we as believers in life are to make the argument that every life is sacred, we can’t by our actions display the opposite attitude. Paul Hill did just that.

Paul Hill didn’t save any babies; he didn’t help overturn Roe v. Wade, and he most certainly did not help advance the cause…Paul Hill could not promote life by committing murder, anymore than Britton could.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...which side of this issue God likely supports..."

God commanded us not to murder.

He commanded Britton not to murder, just as he commanded Paul Hill not to murder.

[fatima]

wideawake,What I said is what I said and all can understand.This thread is sick.

[wideawake]

The system cannot survive with rampant vigilantism, and people feeling justified in acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner whenever they do not agree with the current set of laws.

Again, the issue here is not the retroactive judgment and punishing of past acts by private citizens, something which no one here is arguing that Paul Hill had any right to do.

It is a matter of human beings acting to stop someone who is about to murder other human beings.

As I said earlier, if Paul Hill acted in the belief that he had some authority to punish John Britton's past actions then he was wrong. But that's emphatically not what Paul Hill said he was doing.

[wideawake]

wideawake,What I said is what I said

I agree emphatically with this tautology.

and all can understand.

You began your post to me by saying "Why is he still here?" I don't know the identity of "he."

This thread is sick.

Please explain why.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It is a matter of human beings acting to stop someone who is about to murder other human beings."

What Paul Hill accomplished was heightened security for abortion-givers, and a tool for pro-abortion forces to paint the pro-life movement as hypocrites and crazies.

How can we call ourselves pro-life, and kill in the name of life?

If God wanted to stop abortion, He could do it with an afterthought...but He's given us the gift of free will, and that free will MUST BE the weapon employed to stop abortion, not guns.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You have a problem with free speech?

[wideawake]

What Paul Hill accomplished was heightened security for abortion-givers, and a tool for pro-abortion forces to paint the pro-life movement as hypocrites and crazies.

This is the most reasonable thing you've said all thread.

I think you have a point here.

I will point out that others argue that the killing of John Britton makes potential abortionists decide that going into that line of work is just too risky.

How can we call ourselves pro-life, and kill in the name of life?

We can because there is a substantive moral difference between killing a defenseless unborn child and using deadly force to defend that same unborn child.

To equate the two is to equate, say, a police sniper who shoots at a bankrobber about to murder a hostage with the bankrobber himself.

If God wanted to stop abortion, He could do it with an afterthought . . .

This truism does not absolve us of the responsibility to defend the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

but He's given us the gift of free will, and that free will MUST BE the weapon employed to stop abortion, not guns.

The use of weapons to defend the unborn is itself an exercise of free will.

"Free will" and "guns" are not antonyms - one is a faculty of the soul, the other is a manufactured tool.

Your underlying argument seems to imply that abortionists should use their free will to decide not to murder people, or that the young women who decide to murder their children should abstain from intercourse in the first place or choose adoption. That's certainly a noble sentiment and all efforts should be made to encourage a conversion of heart.

One would also hope that if a crack-addled thug breaks into one's home with a knife, one could simply reason with him and persuade him on moral grounds not to cut one's throat or rape one's wife or steal one's DVD player.

But realistically, one knows that the only way such a person can be dissuaded is by the threat or use of overpowering physical force.

While your argument that Paul Hill's actions were in the end unstrategic and counterproductive is a strong one, it does not prove that Paul Hill acted immorally. It means that he acted imprudently.

Getting back to the larger issue raised by Polycarp's original posting, John Britton could not have reasonably expected that he could murder hundreds of children without deeply upsetting some people. Any time one raises a bloody hand against innocents, all bets are off.

And the situation raises a philosophical question for proaborts to ponder: if the lives of innocent children only have value if we subjectively assign them a value, how can they possibly argue that the lives of abortionists have any higher intrinsic value? Why do they operate on the presumption that the John Brittons of the world should be immune from the treatment they mete out daily?

The only counterargument is to adopt a thoroughgoing legal positivism, a viewpoint which no one actually believes in because it necessitates a denial of lived reality.