Posted on 09/03/2003 2:37:33 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - The spiritual adviser to convicted murderer Paul Hill, who killed an abortionist and a clinic escort, criticized pro-life organizations for their unwillingness to support the former Presbyterian minister as he awaited a Wednesday execution.
The Rev. Donald Spitz, who has met daily with Hill, said many people in the pro-life movement consider Hill a hero for killing abortionist John Britton and his escort, James Barrett, at an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., on July 29, 1994.
Spitz said Hill would become a martyr when Florida executes him by lethal injection Wednesday. As director of Pro-Life Virginia, Spitz has long been an advocate for using force to stop abortions. He chided groups that call themselves pro-life but don't share his views.
"They're absolute hypocrites," Spitz said. "If an abortionist walked into their house and was going to murder their children, they're not going to take a human life to protect their own children? I think they would. Yet they don't feel the lives of those 32 babies were worth protecting.
"They prefer dead babies to the dead abortionist. If you have to choose between live babies or a live abortionist, I'd choose the live babies. They choose dead babies and a live abortionist," he added. "They seem to have a total disregard for the babies they're trying to protect."
Spitz contends that Hill's actions saved the lives of 32 unborn babies who would have been aborted on the day he carried out the murder.
Hill has other defenders as well, including the Rev. Michael Bray of Bowie, Md., who has written a book justifying the murder of abortionists.
Some of the country's large pro-life organizations as well as groups in Florida have distanced themselves from the views of Spitz and Bray.
"Pro-life means that you think that every life is created by God and it is sacred because it was created by God, so we wouldn't advocate the killing of anybody, regardless of what they had done," American Life League Vice President Jim Sedlak said last week.
"Obviously, some people are trying to make Paul Hill out to be some kind of martyr. He's not; he's a murderer who deserves whatever punishment the state deems appropriate." Sedlak added.
Florida Right to Life spokeswoman Lynda Bell agreed that Hill won't be a martyr, even though some people are bound to label him as one. She said the unborn babies who are aborted every day are martyrs, not a man convicted of killing two people and wounding a third.
"If you are pro-life, you do not kill to defend life," Bell said. "That is absurd. To say that you are going to take the life of an abortionist because it is justifiable is a contradiction."
Bell also turned the tables on abortion advocates who have warned that Hill's execution would result in increased violence at clinics. She said most pro-life groups were speaking out against Hill and his beliefs even before the 1994 murder, and therefore there's little reason to believe there would be an upswing in violence now.
Statistics from the National Abortion Federation, which tracks clinic violence, indicate that serious crimes have declined in recent years.
Hill's execution has generated the interest of several factions, including anti-death penalty advocates, who have joined forces with pro-life groups like the Florida Catholic Conference to ask Republican Gov. Jeb Bush to halt the execution. Bush has rejected those pleas.
Catherine Britton Fairbanks, stepdaughter of the slain abortionist, said she opposes the execution because it is no different than Hill's planned murder of her father.
"I believe the death penalty is immoral, it's inhumane and it's barbaric," she said. "It's not the right thing to do to anyone."
The Florida Catholic Conference, which asked Bush to issue a stay, has also expressed concerns about the implications the execution might have on pro-lifers. Sheila Hopkins, associate for social concerns, said activists should counsel women through prayer rather than resort to violence.
"Paul Hill is getting his wish, and that is, he wants to be executed," Hopkins said. "He feels that is what his role was by stopping the abortionists from killing babies. He feels he has accomplished his goal. Quite honestly, he feels this will serve as an example for other people to do the same."
Hopkins also criticized Hill's supporters for citing religion as a defense for his actions. Spitz, for instance, said the Bible contains multiple references to protecting the innocent. He said it's completely justifiable to intervene when someone's life is at stake.
"Violence is what's created a lot of problems in our society, and the worst thing that we could do is resort to more violence," Hopkins said. "We look at the execution as another form of violence."
See Earlier Story:
Planned Execution Stirs Debate Over Religious Link to Violence (Aug. 29, 2003)
Listen to audio for this story.
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Not ours.
Period.
A child is not an independent life form either. Babies require intensive and almost continuous care, and can't do zip for themselves. In no way are they "independent". They can't feed themselves, let alone provide their food, can't put their clothes on, let alone provide clothing, don't know enough to come in out of the rain, let alone providing for their shelter - babies are vastly more dependent than most young animals.
So if that's the criteria, infanticide is justifiable.
Before conception, the egg has no existence separate from its mothers. After conception, it can be removed and grown from without the mother. Not yet all the way to a baby, but that's not farr off.
Conception is the only bright line.
If Hill was trying to protect the unborn, then he should have shot the mother. The doctor was only doing his job. Much like HCI trying to blame handgun manufactures for a criminals actions. If the doctor was trying to FORCE the woman to have an abortion, I would agree with your statement.
I don't defend or condone Hill's actions. I do understand them. I think he was wrong, but it's not like he was a ripoff artist shooting a store clerk, or a sniper shooting people buying gas.
My points are - abortion is murder, and it should be illegal. I am saying nothing about Hill.
The religious Rights cry to kill abortion doctors, and the effeminazi view on abortion to the 16th trimester, are equally ludicrous.
I think both are wrong, but the latter is vastly more ludicrous.
Later term abortions should only be considered if the health of the mother is at stake and the child cannot be removed without killing her and/or the child. That kind of proceedure should be between the woman and her doctor. If she wants to give up her life for her child, that is her choice. Without the direct, biological connection to the child, the father kind gets left out in the cold on these decisions.
The major difference being that any other individual can take care of a child. It does not require its birth mother for its survival. At a certain point in gestation, a fetus can survive without being inside the mother it was concieved in.
So no, infanticide is most certainly NOT justifiable.
Before conception, the egg has no existence separate from its mothers. After conception, it can be removed and grown from without the mother. Not yet all the way to a baby, but that's not farr off.
When that Star Trek moment happens, the ethics of abortion becomes that much murkier. Any jsutification for terminating cellular replication would evaporate outside of eugenics arguments. Let's not go there yet. We aren't grown up enough.
I think both are wrong, but the latter is vastly more ludicrous.
How about the anti-onanites with their knickers in a bunch over the spilling of seed? There is plenty ludicrousness to go around.
Murderer. A martyr is one who gives their own life, not takes the life of another.
DC, are you a parent? If so, how can you tell me "any other individual" can take care of a child? A crack whore? A teenager? A person with Alzheimers? Even without the extreme examples, it takes more than just a bit of knowledge, and effort, to care for a baby. And it's irrefutable that a baby is not an "independent person".
The day when a baby (fertilized egg) can survive outside the mother's body is here today. It is medically possible to remove a fertilized ovum from one person and implant it in another. (I was surprised by this.) See here. So the Star Trek moment has arrived.
So no, infanticide is most certainly NOT justifiable.
And, if abortion is, pray tell why not?
When that Star Trek moment happens, the ethics of abortion becomes that much murkier. Any jsutification for terminating cellular replication would evaporate outside of eugenics arguments. Let's not go there yet. We aren't grown up enough.
There's nothing murky about abortion. It's murder, plain and simple.
How about the anti-onanites with their knickers in a bunch over the spilling of seed?
It makes your palms hairy and makes you go blind too, from what I've heard. Of course I'd know nothing about that !
Do not deliberately dodge the point. Yes, I AM a parent. You know damn well what I meant. There is a huge difference between being connected by an umbilicus, and being handfed by another human. Don't distort your point to where it breaks.
The day when a baby (fertilized egg) can survive outside the mother's body is here today. It is medically possible to remove a fertilized ovum from one person and implant it in another. (I was surprised by this.) See here. So the Star Trek moment has arrived.
It would have to be afewully early in the division cycle. Once it implants in the uterine wall, it's pretty much there for the duration. So no, unless you have a link to research saying otherwise, removing a fetus and implanting it in another mother is still a ways off.
There's nothing murky about abortion. It's murder, plain and simple.
If it were that plain and simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we? Nor would this wack-a-nut Hill have shot three people.
It makes your palms hairy and makes you go blind too, from what I've heard. Of course I'd know nothing about that
Oddly, a new study says that one of the ways for men to reduce their prostate cancer risk is to have four or more orgasms a week. Self service is optional for those with a healthy married life... ;-) Still, such practices are decried as evil by some of the very same extremists who advocate shooting abortion providers.
I think you at least get my point. Agreement is not required.
In about 25 more minutes, that will no longer be an issue.
But the simpletons who try to justify his actions will still be around.
Of course. I'm trying to win you to the other point of view because it's more logically consistent.
I'm arguing from the viewpoint of the right to life being supreme, with all others subordinate to it. It's obvious to everyone (except apparently Peter Singer and certain ethnic groups who want sons) that once a baby is born it has a separate existence and right to life.
Why is it different for an "embryo" or "fetus"? Where is the magical line that separates "fetal tissue" from "baby"?
Why isn't it obviously conception?
Yes, there were illegal abortions before Roe. Yes, some women died of them. By that reasoning, consider that women also commit infanticide. Should we allow them to kill any born infant up to, let's say, 3 months because they "do it anyway?" Why 3 months? Why not stop at 6 months? Two years? Seventeen years? For that matter, why shouldn't spouses who don't want the hassle of a divorce just be able to kill their inconvenient spouses legally, since they do it illegally right now?
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.