Smarmy? I wouldn't let this guy near my child, that's for damn sure.
Posted on 09/03/2003 2:37:33 AM PDT by kattracks
This seems to be the point on which our disagreement is based. Of course Paul Hill's actions against the doctor were a response to what the doctor was doing -- nobody disputes that. My point was that Hill could very well have been acting on much more than a simple opinion on an extraneous matter -- he was acting to prevent something that was irrefutably, objectively wrong (the murder of innocent human beings). The fact that the doctor may not have recognized the inherent moral outrage that he was perpetuating did not necessarily change Hill's approach. In other words, I have yet to see any indication that Hill would have acted differently if the doctor had been "naive" about what he was doing instead of "complicit" in it (i.e., if the doctor "thought he was doing what was right" as opposed to "knew he was doing something wrong but did it anyway").
Thank you for making my argument for me, by indicating the murder committed by Paul Hill was not random, it was a specific target, planned in advance, made with plenty of "judgement".
And thank you for making my point that the comparison between Hill and McVeigh was irrelevant and pointless. Contrary to McVeigh, Hill acted in a manner that was deliberately aimed at minimizing the risk to people other than his targets. Whether he was "right" to do this is certainly a debatable point, but there's no issue of "collateral damage" in this case.
The man was an abortion doctor. I don't know the details of the shooting of the woman, but i suppose she most likely was collateral damage.
Well that's just it then isn't it? Hill killed the doctor, not the mothers going in to have a medical proceedure that kills the fetus inside them. The mothers were the ones that Hill should have been targeting here according to your "logic". It was from the Mother that the fetus needed protection from.
Keep up your incoherent ranting though. You are only digging your hole deeper.
Face it. Hill was wrong. He'll be burning in his own Hell before the sunrises tomorrow.
I don't know if I've ever seen a more clear case of "rendering judgement" here on FreeRepublic. Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
Hill killed the doctor, not the mothers going in to have a medical proceedure that kills the fetus inside them. The mothers were the ones that Hill should have been targeting here according to your "logic". It was from the Mother that the fetus needed protection from.
In cases like this, there is a difference between someone who is potentially acting under duress and someone who has nothing at stake but a pile of cash. If a woman walked into a police station and offered to pay a cop $500 to shoot her, we would hold the cop (not her) responsible for her death if he complied.
This is precisely why "physician-assisted suicide" is a meaningless term -- someone who commits suicide kills himself. Someone who has a doctor do it for him is being killed, and the doctor assumes responsibility for his death. This is why Dr. Kevorkian is now sitting in prison, BTW.
Don't back up now. You were the one who said it is possible to "render a judgement without rendering judgement in the biblical sense". Hill did both. Period. The logic should be self evident. Unless you want to sit here and split semantic hairs over phraseology and completely disregard Hills actions and words as pertinent.
Comparing Hills actions to those of a soldier are not logical at all. The circumstances are completely different. Who was Hill in danger from? Was the doctor trying to attack him? Did the fetus, or the Mother of said fetus, request Hills aid?
If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jehova.
Smarmy? I wouldn't let this guy near my child, that's for damn sure.
Yes, I did say that, because it is. I made a judgement to hit the refresh button a second ago to see if there were any posts to me. That is not what judgement in the biblical sense is.
Hill did both. Period. The logic should be self evident.
Yes, he did. I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that Alberta's Child statement that one can kill without rendering judgement is correct.
Unless you want to sit here and split semantic hairs over phraseology
Well, it's better than the 5-10 things that you have falseley accused me of with zero to back it up.
and completely disregard Hills actions and words as pertinent.
I have not made a single statement regarding Hill's words or actions. Please cite where I did. Your emotional accusations are getting tired.
Comparing Hills actions to those of a soldier are not logical at all.
I did not do so. Please cite where I did. Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. Why are you incapable of seperating your emotions from logic. Are you a soccer mom by any chance?
The circumstances are completely different.
I didn't say that they weren't. The soldiers are a valid example that one can kill without rendering judgement, that is all that I said. I nowhere stated that Hill's actions were comparable to the soldiers.
Who was Hill in danger from?
Nobody, and I did not state that he was in danger from anyone.
Was the doctor trying to attack him? Did the fetus, or the Mother of said fetus, request Hills aid?
No, nor did I say that he did. I think that we are up to over 10 baseless and false accusations that you have made against me. Go drop your kids off at soccer, gossip a little with your neighbors, sit and read a Dr. Phil book while your cats sit on your lap, and then get over behaving like an irrational woman and starting learning to read logically.
Actually, if you knew the slightest bit about Chritianity you would know that we are all sinners, so to simply state that someone is going to hell for having sinned shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to believe that Hill is in deep trouble with the Lord because I think he has sinned and yet is unrepentant. You, however, have no idea what you are talking about.
It doesn't, but our soccer mom friend seems to specialize in false and phony accusations.
It is worth remembering that this nation was founded by people who overthrew a government over issues that were far less important than what we are dealing with here.
That sums my thoughts on abortion up pretty well.
On the uses of force. The ONLY use of force I can ethically condone is in DEFENSE of ones person and possessions. Aid can be rendered to others without their express consent, but it should also be realized that such aid may be unwanted. In which case you are violating anothers Rights and are subject to penalties under Law after trial. This later one is what Hill did. He deserves the death penalty.
From a purely Christian perspective, he's a murderer who will burn in Hell until Judgement day. IHVH is pretty clear on this one as is Jesus. No ambiguity despite the twisting attempts seen on this thread.
Actually, according to Christianity a murderer who repents of his sins, accepts the Lord as his savior, and is born again of the spirt will most certainly not go to Hell. But then again, I don't know why I waste my time with you as you just seem to love talking about subjects of which you know nothing.
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.