Replies

Well, what I think would be much more interesting, in the quest for journalistic integrity, would be to examine Paul Hill's last statements. Curiously, no one has moved to verify the either poetic irony or haunting reality of his goal that day: to stop the killing in that place.

It has impact, but no one has pursued it: can we find just one woman who was scheduled for a "procedure" that day or soon after, who, in the delay and trauma of the event, decided to keep her child? That child would be at least 9 years old today. Is she grateful? Does she still think about how it felt to arrive at the clinic and see that someone so violently opposed her "choice" that day? What changed her mind? Is she happy, is the child happy? Are there others out there?

If it was found there was no impact on a single person's decision, then that irony alone would warrant a closer inspection of our collective hearts.

These findings would not justify his actions in the eyes of the U.S. Judicial system, nor in the eyes of anyone who opposes killing as a means of solving a problem.

But, it would bring Paul Hill's reasoning into a different light. It might make some folks uncomfortable, even enrage them. But it would be intellectually honest to at least ask. Has anyone asked?

Has anyone asked

I sort of did.

To: sitetest

On their own initiative, individuals may only use lethal violence in immediate defense of innocent human life.

First, let me thank you for your very thoughtful post. But as to the above, my question is, and this is a very hard question for me; isn't that what Paul Hill literally did? He wasn't intending to punish the abortionist and his accomplices, he was intending to use lethal violence in immediate defence of innocent human life. That end he probably accomplished, at least with reference to those slated to be executed that day by the abortionist. Whomever survived the abortionist's knife that day and who may still be alive owes his or her very life in part to Paul Hill, no? Please understand that my question is in no way meant to endorse Paul Hill's violence as the only or even the best way (and therefore justified) to prevent the taking of innocent human life. I personally think he used excessive force, but it might be difficult to convince someone who was saved that day of that view.

To even have to ask the question as I have demonstrates the wicked depravity of our situation and of unregenerate human nature, where anarchy parades itself as the rule of law, where the wicked go free and the innocent are condemned. God have mercy on us.

Cordially,

195 posted on 09/04/2003 2:10 PM CDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]