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.
Is this your final answer with respect to Osama Bin Laden, et.al. ?
I think the most appropriate comparison with with John Brown.
Exactly. The women who wanted to kill their babies just went to the next (grotesquely named) "Planned Parenthood" clinic down the road. Hill's action was great for their business.
Exactly. She made her CHOICE when she CHOSE to have sex!
I worked with a nurse at our local Health Dept. who told me how foolish I was to encourage my girls to remain virgins until they are married. "It's impossible because of hormones." huh? She now works for planned parenthood and is very proud of all the abortions she has been a part of... she speaks joyously about her work, when she's not moaning about how the legal system has come down on her drug addicted son who tends to like to drive while under the influence.
Life is a series of choices...from the situations we put ourselves in, to deciding when to have sex, to taking a gun and killing an abortionist and his helper. When one makes a bad decision, murder is not an option for 'getting out of it'.
****Adoption...the beautiful alternative!****
Can't we all just . . . get along? LOL.
A soldier in time of war, is in direct harms way. Their decision to shoot the enemy is a matter of SELF preservation. The only way Hills actions could have been justified on those lines is if his own life was in danger. It wasn't. Period. End of story.
Rendering a judgement is different from "rendering judgement" in the biblical sense.
Twist it to your own preconcieved notions as you will, you would still be wrong.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer. Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done. Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
Twist it to your own preconcieved notions as you will, you would still be wrong.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer. Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done. Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
sorry about the html snafu
Big whoopee doo. I "render a judgement" every time I decide whether to have coffee or tea in the morning. That's not what we're talking about here. If Hill were acting to punish the abortionist, then he was "rendering judgement" in the sense that everyone here has been discussing the issue. If Hill were acting to protect innocent lives, then he was not necessarily passing judgement on the abortionist's fitness to live.
A soldier in time of war, is in direct harms way. Their decision to shoot the enemy is a matter of SELF preservation.
If a soldier were acting in self-preservation, then he wouldn't be involved in a war in the first place. In fact, he is in harm's way because he is not acting to preserve himself -- he is seeking to protect some greater good even if it means putting himself at risk.
The only way Hills actions could have been justified on those lines is if his own life was in danger.
There is no basis for this statement at all. If Hill had come across a man spraying gunfire into a crowded school playground, he would have had an obligation (not a "right," mind you -- an obligation) to do whatever it took to incapacitate the assailant.
This is precisely the moral dilemma that the pro-life movement faces -- it is based entirely on the notion that an unborn child is just as human as an elementary school student, but it does not want to face the logical extension of that argument. I don't know about you, but if there were a man with an AK-47 firing rounds into a school playground, I would have far more respect for the bystander who ran away from the scene than for the bystander who decided to hold a sign and pray the Rosary while the children were dropping to the ground.
I made no statements to any such effect, nor so I believe any such thing.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
I didn't say that it was right with my scripture, nor do I beleive that it is right with my scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer.
I don't and didn't say anything which could be construed as sympathy with this murderer
Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done.
I didn't try to justify his actions.
Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
I am arguing no such thing. Nor did I argue anything else that you accuse me of arguing.
All that happened here is that Alberta's Child made a logical (and I beleive false) argument that one can kill without rendering judgement in the biblical sense. He pointed out that the soldiers in Iraq are in fact killing without rendering judgement. What happened then is a bunch of people got all emotional and accusesd him of equating Hill with the soldiers in Iraq, when in fact he did no such thing. I simply pointed out that Alberta's Child argument that one can kill without rendering judgement in the biblical sense is in fact correct. You then got all emotional and accused me of a whole litany of things without any basis whatsoever.
Sorry, I beleive that Alberta's logical argument there is correct. I beleive his overall position is incorrect for various reasons.
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.