ABORTION-SLAY REV EXECUTED

New York Post ^ | 9/04/03 | GERSH KUNTZMAN

[kattracks]

September 4, 2003 -- As a violent thunderstorm flickered and dimmed the lights in Florida's execution chamber, a former minister was put to death last night for murdering an abortion doctor.

Paul Hill used his last breaths to call upon right-to-lifers to continue the fight - by any means necessary.

[wimpycat]

That abortion is "legal" does not make it right. It's still state sanctioned murder, and should be prevented by whatever means are necessary.

Do you honestly mean to say "by whatever means are necessary"? Are we understanding you correctly? And who decides, who is the final authority on what is considered a "necessary" means? Is it you? Or me?

[Dave S]

Hill rightly thought that abortion was no less than unjustified murder, and since it is 'legal' he couldn't work within the system to stop it.

You besmirch all the Pro-Life people that obey the law. There is plenty you can do to fight abortion without becoming a murderer.

[Dave S]

This place scares the hell out of me sometimes.

Those who scare me most are the Christian Fundamentalists who want a theocracy and the drug using ex-cons who want their gun rights and who scream murder whenever a cop is forced to protect himself. No wonder its taken so long for conservatives to win over a majority of the public.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I'm right there with you.

[solitonic]

I just came across this article and read the posts carefully and with great interest. It is clear to me that Heartbreak of Psoriasis has done an excellent job of getting to the root of the issues here early on, basically by asking poignant, difficult, and thought-provoking questions (in #9, in #21, and again in #44). He has done so in a friendly and sincere way. And he has acted like a gentleman.

Just re-read some of his posts and consider his tone:

Which is it, my friends? (in #21)

I really would like to hear a satisfactory explanation, because frankly speaking I don't like holding the position that logic compels me to adopt.
I await your considered reply. (in #28)

I therefore gently reiterate my friendly challenge to you and others on this thread to address the arguments made above using reason alone.
I await your reasoned response. (in #89)

Again, somebody please prove me wrong. Give me at least one good argument...
But alas, I see no way around it. (in #77)

Certain others, who I will not directly name, have failed to offer decent rebuttals to his deserving and sincere questions. (A half-hearted attempt at seriousness, post #35, was subsequently defeated by Heartbreak in #39.)

Instead of reasoned argument, they have responded with vitriolic accusations and name-calling:

"troll, " "arrogant," "duplicitous," "disturbed," "disruptor," and "piffle"
(in #67, #70, #74, #82, etc.)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (in #67)

"I'm sure there are ministers and psychologists who would be happy to help you with your profound problems." (in #82)

Worst of all, Heartbreak of Psoriasis is accused of being "new" (#70).

I believe that the kind of posts that Heartbreak of Psoriasis has submitted are thought-provoking, and his questions stimulating, and this (at least in times past) is what FreeRepublic is supposed to be all about. And frankly, I am ashamed at the behavior of his respondents.

Heartbreak, you appear to be a zealous defender of the innocent. I welcome you to FreeRepublic, and I hope you stick around. Your sincere posts deserve honest, genuine responses, which have thus far been denied. Therefore I will try to give one:

You are right. The "rule of law" dictum that people are throwing up at you is not central in this issue. We agree that inalienable rights to life (can only) come from our Creator, that His Moral Law is higher, but that "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". Yet countless times in the past, men and governments of men have justified (perfectly "legal") atrocities in the name of their "law". Sadly, America is increasingly becoming less different.

But we are not called to take up arms to avenge evil:

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left. (Deuteronomy 32:35-36)

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Dearly beloved, do not take revenge, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-19)

The "burning coals" speak of God's final judgement.

In post #44 you asked,

1. Do you agree that any human being has the natural right to self defense?

2. Does that right to self defense include the right to use force in the defense of life?

3. If you agree that people do have a right to use force in the defense of life, then do you agree that one may use force in the defense of the life of another, innocent person?

(I'm really hoping you've answered "yes" thus far, as I'd hate to think that any American would deny any of that).

Yes, we do have these inalienable rights, but that is not all that God is concerned about. It is not only a question of "rights," but what is better in God's eyes.

One must have faith to accept it, but in the eyes of God it is actually better for us in the long run that we do not insist upon the finality of these earthly rights. Instead we are called to "take up our cross daily," and follow Him, sharing in His sufferings:

Now if we are children, then we are heirs -- heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17)

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:10)

Since we do not "wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly realms" therefore we ought not fight this war with earthly weapons. Instead we are called to take up "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6)

I admit that it is sometimes very difficult to wait upon the Lord's judgement. I struggle with it, and sometimes my faith is weak. Sometimes I am tempted to exact my own vengeance, or to prevent those who would do evil from acting. But the Bible is very clear that it is best in God's eyes for us to accomplish His mission in His Way, for His power is made perfect in our weakness.

[Wordsmith]

Thank you very much for treating this issue with the respect it deserves.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I'm seeing that revealed on these threads. They clearly rejoice in people being killed - whether those people perform abortions or not. All to intimidate the abortionists themselves, I guess.

It's terrorism. Plain and simple.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

You've got that right, strela. Yikes.

[Deepest South]

No, I'm not aware of anyone locally that was a "follower". A few out of towners dropped into Pensacola and quickly caught the attention of the media. One, Rev. Spitz who was mentioned in the recent Hill stories came into the city along with a couple of others.

Hill, to the media became the spokesperson for Michael Griffin who he had never met. Griffin denied shooting Dr. Gunn althou gh I'm aware the media reported "police said Griffin said he shot the doctor" I thought it was pretty imprudent to attempt to speak for Griffin when Griffin did not ask him to and in fact did not take responsiblity for the shooting.

My wife and I had a pretty good relationship with local law enforcement, we were as shocked by Hill as anyone. As a matter of fact we did not like to be in the same location as Hill as we disagreed with his ideas on justifiable homicide.

As for threats to Florida officials no idea who it could be. My position is that those types of actions and ideas cause it to be much more difficult to be accepted as a reasonable and logical human being whose focus is to protect life.

My personal bottom line is save the children by trying to meet the needs of the woman in crisis. There are plenty of resources, perhaps a bit disjointed in the distribution.

[MEG33]

Perhaps you might wish to complain to the admin. moderator about my abusive posts you that freepmailed me about.

[lugsoul]

Real convictions, alone, are not a virtue. Mohammed Atta had real convictions.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Why did he kill the bodyguard then?

[3Lean]

You forgot to mention that he has the right to remain silent...

What's with the accusatory tone?

[Buckeye Bomber]

Actually, he has the right to avoid only incrimination of himself. You can be held in contempt of court for failure to truthfully answer questions about others.

[flyer182]

Last time I checked we live in a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Use the bible all you like to justify murder, but I ask you. Would Jesus have picked up a shotgun?

[solitonic]

If you agree that you have been unfair, report yourself. :-) I mailed you privately because I believe a friendly nudge toward self-policing is a better policy. Best regards.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm not a cop, LOL, so I don't have to mirandize him.

In light of all the crap spread by Hill supporters, I felt it instructive to ask a few questions to divine how much he might have known, and to see if he'd say it, considering that he knew the lunatic personally. Frankly, the notion that his wife was out taking pictures of Britton, had some apparent scrape with the dead escort, and that he himself claims had been trying to talk Hill out of his philosophy is suspect in my eyes.

[strela]

It's still state sanctioned murder, and should be prevented by whatever means are necessary.

Statements like that have been used by every murderous wackjob kook in history to justify atrocities against populations great and small. Your apparent statement that you support vigilanteism and the law of the jungle over the rule of law is something that I never thought I would read coming from the keyboard of a Freeper. It (and any future posts coming from you) is noted.

[AmericaUnited]

"You don't understand that killing and murder are not the same."

You don't understand that they are. It's simply that some murder is justified.

It's so simple to prove you completely wrong on this. One of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not murder" (yes, the Hebrew word meant murder, not kill.) So, since we agree that God would not tell someone to violate one of his laws and commit sin, THERE MUST BE A DIFFERENCE!

[bitcon]

You missed the entire point. My point was that the taking of a human life isn't always murder.