Pro-Lifers Clash Over Paul Hill: Martyr or Murderer

CNSNews.com ^ | 9/03/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[Gil4]

"If Paul Hill had walked into a crack house and killed the same number of people, we wouldn't be talking about this."

Unless he said he did it because he believes the Bible teaches it's the right thing to do, that God wanted him to clean up our streets. Then we'd hear about it ad nauseum (kind of like we're hearing about it now.)

[2timothy3.16]

Just about the only place I will NOT carry my handgun is at the Abortuary where I pray on Saturday mornings - a much too emotionaly-charged atmosphere. I always ask God for guidance when I grab my handgun and head out of the house anyway, but the abortion mill is just too risky for me....

Ditto.

[Tax-chick]

Good point! Anyway, it's been observed that even small impediments - a drive over 90 miles, a 24-hour waiting period - drastically reduce the number of abortions in an area. That's why the abortionists fight even the simplest rules (like the ones involved in every other surgery) and scream so loudly about "availability."

[MalcolmS]

What part of "Vengance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay" did Paul Hill not understand?

[Gil4]

"No abortions are stopped by murder or unenforceable laws."

That's why I'm all in favor of enforceable laws (and judges that don't change them just because they don't like them.) Overturn Roe vs. Wade - not because a lot of people don't like it (including me), but because it is bad constitutional law.

[PleaseNoMore]

You still didn't answer the question. If the abortion issue doesn't belong in the courts and criminal justice system, WHERE does it belong? An unborn child should be afforded every protection available to you and me by law. Where are our laws dealt with? In the courts and within the criminal justice system as a whole.

When you say "steady stream" I think I would have to disagree with that and call it what it is, an exaggeration. Yes, there were women who did have post abortive complications, I agree. The numbers weren't as high as some would have you believe though.

[PleaseNoMore]

That, friend, is exercising wisdom.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Exactly. On a human justice level though, leaving God out for the sake of argument, the abortionist is scum and the babies he may have saved deserve a chance to debate this issue as well. The problem with Hill is that he made the abortionist he killed into a martyr. Killing your enemy is not what Jesus taught. We are the ones who are supposed to be killed for our beliefs, God will take care of his enemies in his own time.

[Rodney King]

My sister was a young RN in a big city hospital in the late 60's and early 70's before Roe-Wade. She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

What does steady stream mean? That could mean a couple per year to 10 per day. My understanding is that the whole back-alley thing was way over-blown, although I admit I could be wrong there.

But, you further proved my general point about the illogic of your opinions by replying with another platitude that has been washed into your head, meanwhile refusing to examine the logic of certain of your beleifs such as the idea that anything that can't be 100% prevented should be made legal.

[bc2]

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."

[2timothy3.16]

My pastors opinion:

Paul, I understand, I wish I knew you were right.

[jimt]

She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

This is my mother's argument as well.

But two wrongs don't make a right. If the supreme right of an individual is their right to life, then the right of the baby to life clearly trumps the mother's right to privacy (a silly argument) or her right "to control her own body".

Of course she has the right to control her own body, up to the point where she uses it to create another human being. The only bright line between "tissue" and "human" occurs at conception. Any argument used to justify abortion after conception can similarly justify abortion after birth. (If you don't think so, try me.)

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. That's why abortion is quite properly the subject of law, as it protects babies from having their right to life violated.

[BMiles2112]

Any argument used to justify abortion after conception can similarly justify abortion after birth.
I wrote a paper in college in support of infanticide. I took the abortion argument, reworded it, and turned it in. The prof got my point, and gave me a good grade on it.

[Alberta's Child]

I think Paul Hill has pricked the conscience of the entire pro-life movement.

Say what you want about him, but if someone told me that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and then went out and did what he did, I'd take him very seriously.

[Dead Corpse]

"Judge not, lest ye' be judged" and "Thou shalt not murder" are pretty darn unambiguous. Hill is going to his Christian Hell for his actions. According to his own religion, only God is fit to judge a persons life. "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Hills hypocrisy alone should be enough to condem him no matter what one feels is right concerning the abortion issue.

[Alberta's Child]

On what grounds can anyone say that Hill "rendered judgement" in this case?

He could very well have approached this whole situation without rendering judgement any more than a soldier does so when he shoots an Iraqi in Tikrit.

[dmz]

I would say the obvious premeditation in this case alone is enough to safely say that judgement was, in fact, rendered.

Attempting to compare a US soldier involved in a firefight in Tikrit to the actions of cowardly Paul Hill really demeans the US soldier.

Perhaps you would use the same argument to defend Tim McVeigh's actions. Collateral damage is a fact of war, y'know.

[Alberta's Child]

I would say the obvious premeditation in this case alone is enough to safely say that judgement was, in fact, rendered.

Premeditation has nothing to do with it. If Hill killed the abortionist with the intent of punishing him for his actions, then "judgement" was certainly rendered. If Hill killed the abortionist for the purpose of eliminating a threat to human beings, then no "judgement" was rendered.

Attempting to compare a US soldier involved in a firefight in Tikrit to the actions of cowardly Paul Hill really demeans the US soldier.

My comparison is a legitimate one -- the U.S. soldier can kill hundreds of enemy soldiers without ever being in a position of rendering judgement upon them. And nothing demeans a U.S. soldier more than having him risk his life and kill others in the "defense" of a morally depraved nation.

Perhaps you would use the same argument to defend Tim McVeigh's actions. Collateral damage is a fact of war, y'know.

Tim McVeigh's target was a bit more random than Paul Hill's, wouldn't you say?

[af_vet_1981]

It is murder.One cannot choose to be judge ,jury and executioner.

Actually one can, he did, and now he is going to die because of it.

[MEG33]

Your comparison of Hill's act of committing murder and a soldier's shooting in a wartime situation is out of bounds.