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?
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.